Military Review

Further development of the main battle tank

80

Soldiers from the 12th armored regiment patrol the tanks LEOPARD C2 along Route Hyena, ensuring the safety of local residents, soldiers from the Allied contingent and the Afghan army during road works



The death of the main battle tank (MBT), as we know, was predicted several times already. It was assumed that it would be replaced by guided missiles and lighter machines that are easier to deploy and that are more suitable for urban operations. However, the excellent combination of lethality, mobility and protection in the MBT plus exceptional modernization possibilities regarding situational awareness, communications and battle management saved him from “extinction”.

The ability to fight despite the multiple hits of rocket-propelled grenades and to protect the crew from all threats, except for large IEDs, demonstrates the relevance of using this class of combat vehicles against insurgents on narrow city streets, despite the fact that their original purpose was to conduct combat with their “equal” in open areas for long distances. But everything could have gone according to another scenario; Russian MBT losses in urban battles in Chechnya in 1995 year became an ominous omen that did not promise anything good, but later ABRAMS and CHALLENGER 2 tanks proved to be effective in Iraq along with LEOPARD OBT from the Dutch and Canadian contingents who later showed themselves in all beauty in Afghanistan.

The most authoritative military-industrial powers consider the MBT as the basis of their forces, which is why they created their own third-generation tanks, while their export potential fades into the background. A series of Israeli tanks MERKAVA, Italian C-1 ARIETE, Japanese Type 10, Korean K2 BLACK PANTHER, Turkish ALTAY (based on Korean BLACK PANTHER) are examples of this. The British tank CHALLENGER 2 and the French MBT LECLERC almost match this pattern, each is in service with the developer country and one foreign buyer. Some Eastern powers, for example, China with their Type 99, India with ARJUN and the FMBT program on advanced MBT and Iran with the ZULFIQAR tank, adopted a similar approach. The only Western third generation models that were widely sold for export are ABRAMS and especially LEOPARD 2, but even they are losing ground in the market for new cars before the onslaught of oriental projects.

New Eastern Superiority

In its latest annual survey, Forecast International predicts, up to 2021, the size of the market for new MBTs in quantities of over 5500 pieces worth approximately 24,25 billion dollars. More than half of this volume, the study says, will be Chinese Type 98, Pak-Chinese AL-KALID and T-90C series tanks manufactured in Russia or in India under license. It is expected that they will make up almost 55% of the market in quantitative terms, but only less than 44% by value. The new production of “advanced” tanks, represented by the ABRAMS and LEOPARD families, as it is supposed in the report will make up about 23% of the market in quantitative terms and 36% in terms of value.

Most operators, however, are more likely to upgrade their tanks than to replace them with new ones. This gives opportunities to companies of special systems, such as Elbit Systems, which invest a lot in electronics, optoelectronics and complex protection systems for MBT platforms. “Knowing our market, I could say today that [in the West] ... the production of new tanks was actually stopped,” said Maimon Yfergan, vice president of ground systems at Elbit Systems, although he also believes that for modernization will continue for several decades.

“We see another phenomenon that such countries as Germany, the USA, Russia, Ukraine give almost for nothing existing platforms with outdated systems on them,” he said. “In a few years, these systems will become obsolete and all tanks will undergo modernization.”

Elbit is upgrading the electronics and optoelectronics of TAM German-made medium tanks in Argentina, as well as participating in a much larger project on upgrading T-72 tanks in India (and looking at the T-72 modernization market worldwide). In each project, the company establishes a complete set consisting of a new MSA, advanced thermal imagers for the shooter’s and commander’s observation devices. Optics arrow with a panoramic view, thermal imaging and laser ranging, now has a reasonable redundancy and is becoming increasingly popular. "This is also what I would say over the past three years has become a mandatory requirement in the market for all types of tanks."

He also comments on the increasingly popular tendency to install cameras around the machine to ensure continuous coverage of 360 ° for crews operating with closed hatches. “Along with the battle management system, the issue of situational awareness has become very important for the operation of the tank,” said Ifergan.

Remotely controlled combat modules (SDMs) have become a widespread phenomenon. In addition to providing auxiliary weapons, which can be serviced by a loader or a commander, the SDS can also be the commander’s main aim, combining two functions in one system. “This is what companies and customers are starting to think about,” said Ifergan.

The US Army intends to keep the M1 ABRAMS MBT in service until about 2050. This represents a significant change in strategy, as it was about to replace it with a much lighter machine in accordance with the program Fighting Systems of the Future (FCS). The abolition of FCS definitely played a role in changing priorities, but the real world combat experience, of course, had a greater impact.

Continuous circular coating 360 ° is also in the area of ​​interest of Schott. The field of view inside the protected vehicles is very limited and creates inconvenience for the soldiers. Schott expanded its normal field of view with its tank periscope from the angle of view 180 °, increasing it from 8 ° to 28 °. To achieve this effect, three lenses are installed together so that they give a panoramic picture from 180 ° to 360 °, when their images are aligned side by side. Images are transmitted using fiber-optic rods; this is already a fairly mature technology that Schott has been putting into practice for many years.

Canada selects WISENT 2 BREM

Further development of the main battle tank


BREM WISENT 2


After a three-year competition, the Canadian Defense Ministry recently issued a contract to Flensburger Fahrzeugbau Gesellschaft (FFG) for 81559692 dollars worth of 13 BREM WISENT 2 AEV (Armored Engine Vehicle). These 13 vehicles will be taken from the surplus of the Dutch and Swiss LEOPARD A4 tanks and then converted into a BREM configuration using the FFG experience. In accordance with the initial application, the BREM should tow a car with a weight equal to the combat mass of the BREM itself on a cable or with the help of other towing devices; preparation of towing an ARV by a crew should be no more than 10 minutes; the winch is either single or double, must provide traction force 70 000 kg using no more than one chain hoist with double cable laying. After winning the FFG competition, of course, the WISENT 2 machine was chosen among all the participants.

In accordance with the compensation regulation, this machine will be largely Canadian, FFG Canada has become the main contractor. The WISENT 2 BREM is an innovative machine for military engineering tasks, it can be used to help create, develop and clear the main supply routes, bridgeheads for crossing water barriers and access roads to bridges. It is usually also used to remove or place obstacles and barricades on the battlefield. This universal engineering vehicle is particularly useful in peacekeeping operations to rebuild national infrastructure destroyed during a conflict. The special working systems WISENT 2 include the modern articulated arm-excavator and the high-performance dozer blade. The excavator bucket has a capacity of 1,3 m3, performance over 300 m3 per hour, working depth to 5,3 m and departure 10,2 m. The machine can also be equipped with a mine plow. WISENT 2 is one of the most advanced multi-functional platforms in the world. It is based on the LEOPARD 2 MBT, which is deployed in many countries and is considered one of the most successful tracked vehicles in service. WISENT 2 stands out in that it is a technically mature and proven system, having proven to be extremely manoeuvrable, powerful and reliable in combat.

The conversion of the MBT to the WISENT 2 BREM, as well as to the armored recovery vehicle ARV (Armored Recovery Vehicle) begins with disassembling and upgrading the standard LEOPARD 2 tank. Advanced welding and the installation of a modern hydraulic system are followed by the installation of a modern crew module. The result is an easily adaptable platform WISENT 2 with a high level of protection already in the basic configuration. Due to the rework of LEOPARD 2, FFG created a multifunctional platform that meets the extremely high demands of the modern battlefield and rapidly changing combat missions. This upgrade allows the WISENT 2 support machines to work with maximum flexibility and quickly complete tasks in operational areas. The newly developed platform also expands the capabilities of commanders in operational spaces.

An important feature of WISENT 2 is a modernized and adaptable booking solution. Even in basic configuration, the crew is protected to the 5 level in accordance with NATO STANAG. When using standardized attachment points, base armor can be quickly upgraded to protect against RPGs by adding passive or lattice armor, SidePRO LASSO or ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor - dynamic protection units). Improved mine protection is achieved by installing an additional splinter tamping and a second armor plate on the bottom of the vehicle. The ground clearance does not change. Improved ballistic protection for the WISENT 2 is achieved by installing armor at low angles and an internal anti-shatter podboy.

The WISENT 2 machine not only offers excellent protection and adaptability to a combat mission, it is also very reliable and has a low lifetime cost. The 2% options for WISENT 95 AEV and ARV are identical in terms of logistics and have the advantages associated with the availability of common parts, which reduces costs over the entire life cycle.

A key enhancement of the WISENT 2 is a specially designed intelligent hydraulic and electronic system. This advanced electronic and hydraulic architecture designed by FFG ensures that the operator can quickly and easily change tasks and switch to other equipment with confidence.

WISENT 2 can take a variety of equipment to perform a wider range of combat missions. In addition to the repair crane and excavator arms, mine plows, equipment for automatic marking of passages and dozer blade with a specially designed adapter can be installed on the WRENT 2 BREM with a specially designed adapter that increases its lifting height. In addition, devices such as miniature trawls, milling heads, concrete cutters, augers, etc. can also be used with a standard hydraulic interface. To meet the specific requirements of the customer and to improve the combat capabilities for the WISENT 2, additional tools and working bodies can be designed.


MBT MERKAVA Mk IV at Eurosatory 2010


Significance of ABT ABRAMS for urban counterinsurgency operations

The main combat phase of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 showed the work of the American and British MBTs; they were expected to participate exclusively in the traditional, fast-moving tank war, but a surprise happened in the second battle for the city of Fallujah in November 2004, when the US Army and Marine Corps ABRAMS OBT played a significant role in the US victory. In a report by the RAND Corporation (California Research and Development Center) 2012, commenting on recent trends in armored forces, a source in the marine corps was quoted as saying that tanks are an essential factor for success in counterinsurgency, which helps minimize indirect losses from its fire and sustaining beats weapons Rebels, which could destroy any other fighting machine. For example, ABRAMS tanks, rammed by cars with explosives, are exposed to enormous explosive forces so that “all the external equipment of the tank is destroyed, but the design causes minimal damage; repairs can usually be completed in one day. ”

While the US Army did not deploy ABRAMS tanks in Afghanistan, the Marines deployed their vehicles at the start of the 2011 of the year. The Marine Corps, which is armed with the ABRAMS M1A1 version, installed most of the TUSK (Tank Urban Survival Kit) military kit for increasing urban survivability of a tank in urban areas and reinforces its tank battalions by adding a fifth tank company to each of them.

Like the US Marines, the British Army also sees its CHALLENGER 2 MBT as a vital and necessary force for success in the main combat phase and the protracted insurgency of “Taurus”; It has the same position in its BMP WARRIOR. British sources interviewed for the RAND report said that the CHALLENGER 2 tanks tend to intimidate insurgents who are becoming less active around tanks. The only CHALLENGER lost in the main combat phase was hit by friendly fire from another CHALLENGER, several tanks were damaged in counterinsurgency, and none were lost due to the need for very large IEDs to seriously damage the CHALLENGER 2 tank.

Despite the proven usefulness of the CHALLENGER tanks in Iraq, Great Britain did not deploy them in its area of ​​responsibility in the Afghan province of Helmand, citing logistical difficulties and "excellent" support for Canadian MBT LEOPARD 2 based in the neighboring province of Kandahar.

In the British strategic defense and security review of 2010, the coalition government announced plans to reduce the fleet of CHALLENGER 2 by about 40%, although the modernization work known as a program to extend the capabilities of the CHALLENGER 2 tank (C2CSP) implies maintaining the relevance of the TAN to the estimated decommissioning around 2035 year. C2CSP includes earlier CHALLENGER mortality programs (CLIP), according to which the current main 120-mm gun will be replaced with the smooth-bore 120-mm Rheinmetall L55.

The C2CSP program began in 2007 and BAE Systems was invited to participate in it, but already the following year, insufficient funding caused delays. Responding to questions in the House of Commons in May 2011, Deputy Minister for Defense Property, Security and Technology Peter Luff said that C2CSP was in the very early stages of creating the concept and that there were no costs incurred.

Nexter showed its AZUR urban battle kit for the LECLERC tank in 2006, providing OBT with composite armor skirts, lattice screens for the hull and turret to protect against RPGs and installing additional shielding of the engine from incendiary bottles.

The RAND report also says that the Canadian experience in Afghanistan also instantly showed the value of MBT when the LEOPARD 1 tank division was thrown onto the theater after the initially deployed LAV 3 confirmed its lack of firepower, protection and mobility to cope with such goals, as, for example, buildings made of reinforced concrete, as well as threats, including mortars, RPGs and recoilless guns, on difficult rugged terrain. The LEOPARD 1 tanks have proven themselves so successful that Canada quickly acquired the surplus of LEOPARD 2 Dutch and German tanks and deployed them in Afghanistan at the beginning of 2008, where they, upgraded with on-board screens to protect against RPGs and more powerful air-conditioning installations, became more successful than with the previous model.

In July, 2009, the Canadian government signed a contract with Kraus Maffei Wegmann (KMW) to upgrade 20 tanks to the configuration of LEOPARD 2 A4M CAN, specially adapted for operations in Afghanistan. In October 2010, they arrived in this country. This upgrade is based on work done on the A6M option and technology, which KMW recently agreed with the German defense procurement and technology department. Basically, it provides for the strengthening of all-protection against anti-tank shells, mines and IEDs. As part of the modernization, an “innovative equipment interface” has also been added for devices such as mine rollers, mine plows and dozer blades.

The LEOPARD 2 Danish tank units deployed in Afghanistan presented very similar data to RAND, emphasizing the accuracy and reactivity of the 120-mm tank gun, which minimizes indirect losses and catches fear on the rebels.

After the second Lebanese war, 2006, the Israeli army again focused on armored war and the role of MBT, after several years of honing low-intensity conflict management skills. Analysts refer to this conflict as an example of a “hybrid war”, which combines the lethality of the conflict at the level of states with the prolonged conduct of irregular hostilities. Replacing outdated tanks and infantry fighting vehicles with the MERKAVA Mk 4 MBT and the NAMER BMP, which is based on the MERKAVA chassis, the Israelis improved their general combat skills, RAND reports, and successfully applied them to the Lead Shield operation in the Gaza Strip in 2008 year . These machines are distinguished by protection sets, which include a V-shaped armored bottom for deflecting mines and IED explosions. In conclusion, the RAND report states that armored forces based on tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are a key component of any army that must fight “diverse enemies” with certain training, discipline, organization, operational management and modern weapons. “Light and medium forces complement heavy (armored) troops in a mixed war, especially in urban and other difficult terrain, but they do not ensure the vitality, lethality or mobility that are inherent in armored forces. Everything is very simple, heavy forces reduce operational risks and minimize friendly losses. ”


Tank LEOPARD 2 A7 + from KMW at Eurosatory 2010



Marines of the 1 platoon of the 1 Tank Battalion attached to the 26 Expeditionary Force are guarded by the M1A1 Abrams tank before the bridge crossing in the Green Zone in the Afghan province of Helmand. Part of the 26 Expeditionary Force deployed in Afghanistan provides regional security in Helmand province in support of the international security assistance forces in Afghanistan


Despite the fact that the ABRAMS tanks shone in urban battles in Iraq, the experience gained revealed certain shortcomings in situational awareness, defense and firepower. The GDLS company, together with the design office for the armored brigade group, set up its forces to eliminate them, creating a TUSK (Tank Urban Survivability Kit) tank survivability kit.

The current variants of the US Army ABRAMS tank are the M1A1 Situational Awareness (M1A1SA) and the M1A2 SEP. The first is an upgrade of M1A1, which includes the installation of steel armor plates with a core of depleted uranium to increase protection in the front arc and from the sides of the tower, improved suspension, a modern computer with integrated diagnostics, a second-generation thermal imager and a laser range finder. In SEP V2, improved color displays, thermal sights, a commander’s remotely controlled combat module (CROWS II), a heat release control system and a telephone for communication with infantry outside have been added.

The US Defense Department’s costs of maintaining, upgrading and upgrading its ABRAMS fleet dropped dramatically in 2010 and 2011, according to Forecast International, but GDLS received 2012 million dollars in an existing contract from the command of the life cycle of an armored vehicle to continue modernization in early January 60 M1A1 options up to standard M1A2 SEP (Systems Enhancement Package - System Upgrade Kit) V2. In February, 2008, the GDLS, received the main multi-year contract to upgrade the 435 tanks M1A1, which were in warehouses for more than two decades, and continues to remodel tanks that are in active service in the army before the configuration M1A2 SEP V2. These works were completed by June 2013.

Despite the revolution in Egypt, ABRAMS co-production continues, and in mid-November 2012, the product life cycle command gave GDLS a contract worth 395 million dollars for the production of 125 tank kits M1A1 for the Egyptian tank program.

It is not clear how these kits could affect the production capacity of ABRAMS in the United States, which the army wants to close in 2014 and re-open in 2017 in order to continue the process of upgrading tanks. It is estimated that it is cheaper than keeping a line operating with a minimum volume during these three years.



Commander sight OBT LECLERC



An Iraqi tank T-72 shoots at targets during a joint shooting exercise with American soldiers at the Besmaya range. These exercises allowed the Iraqi security forces to learn fast loading techniques and improve accuracy.


LEOPARD evolution

The LEOPARD family of tanks was chosen by 16 countries; This is the most successful Western MBT in export markets. Even for the powerful LEOPARD, the prospects for new production are insignificant, but KMW is full of optimism. As Christoph Muller, head of strategy and corporate communications of the company, explained: “It has become clear that the need for an MBT will remain in the future. And there will always be a big question on the total number of tanks that you need. But when protection, mobility and firepower are combined with the capabilities of the review, there are no other ground systems that could be a substitute for a tank. ”

The newest LEOPARD 2 A7 + has been shown in June 2010. Among the innovations is a kit for urban operations, providing circular protection against RPGs. "Double set" provides additional protection against armor-piercing shells and shaped charges, especially in a frontal arc, which is most vulnerable in tank duels.

KMW can integrate active protection complexes that are capable of destroying attacking ammunition, but Muller at the same time expresses some concerns: “We are very closely watching the developments of active protection complexes. To deal with dangerous threats such as attacks from above, they have no alternative, but we also see how users are concerned due to their secondary impact. No matter where the protective ammunition is detonated, near the vehicle or in 10 meters, it does not matter, as the tanks work closely with the infantry, so there will always be a risk for people near the system. ”

However, passive armor using innovative combinations of metals, ceramics, and reinforced polymers in defense systems, sometimes including also reactive components, has come a long way in recent years. Some of its types offer protection not only from simple IEDs and RPGs, but also more sophisticated threats, for example, charge-forming devices, and some reservation systems offer protection against multiple RPG hits. “There is tremendous potential in passive protection,” said Muller. “It makes sense to explore these possibilities.”

The fire power improvements are based on the ability to fire a new 120-mm programmable high-explosive projectile designed to destroy targets behind cover or inside buildings, as well as on KWW FLW 200 RWS. It can be controlled with battered hatches and can be fitted with various weapons, including an 40-mm automatic grenade launcher and machine guns up to the caliber 12,7 mm. Along with the flexible addition of firepower, the DBMS also improves situational awareness. The sensor package consists of a color camera, an uncooled thermal imager and an optional laser range finder. You can add new ATTICA thermal imagers for the gunner and commander, day / night surveillance cameras with a wide field of view and new body / thermal imaging cameras for the driver.

Improvements in mobility include new final drives, suspension, brakes, improved tracks, and an optional dozer blade. The auxiliary power unit (APU) allows the crew to work with different systems without starting the main engine.

Installing the APU is a common thing when upgrading the MBT, but fully hybrid power units are still very far from real incarnation. “We have invested heavily in the development of hybrid energy in this area, but no existing technology allows us to obtain the required mobility on the battlefield, especially with respect to the power reserve. A very big question arises regarding the prospects of a hybrid system that would allow a machine with 60 - 70 tons to cross 500 km over rough terrain. It is only a question of the source of energy, the biggest question is reliability. When it comes to onboard power consumption, then hybrid technologies become an interesting addition. ”

Since KMW has shown a LEOPARD 2A7 + upgrade, which is based on the needs of the German army and the club of LEOPARD countries users, little has been said about sales. The company keeps its mouth shut, but Mr. Müller let it slip: “Many countries show great interest in our system”.

Little space for new

While the thriving modernization market is good for industry, the lack of demand for new MBTs leaves little room for new design solutions. For example, uninhabited towers are starting to appear on new machines, such as the German PUMA, but it is not possible to upgrade existing MBT with uninhabited towers with weapons, because there is no room for the commander and the shooter in addition to the driver. MBT with uninhabited tower, most likely, will have a completely new design.

According to the chief of the technological department of the ground-based systems division at Elbit, Nachman Levinger, who has spent many years working on armored vehicles projects, including the MERKAVA series, “the situation is sad because you can get a lot from this configuration.” He is a lawyer for uninhabited towers and remotely controlled weapons: "Once you have placed people in the hull and tower, you must protect a large volume that cannot be protected as well as if they were put in a small volume."

In addition, he suggests that changes in crew accommodation can change the configuration of any future MBT: “Maybe people will not sit as usual in front of the car. This is a philosophical question and you will need to solve it. "

Despite the limitations of current hybrid technologies, Levinger believes in the promise and importance of systems that generate large amounts of electrical energy for consumers, such as electromagnetic armor and directional energy weapons. He believes that large amounts of energy will be needed to provide "future solutions that can neutralize activity or act for a very short period of time" against buried IEDs and ingeniously placed projectile-forming charges, which cannot be determined.

He also noted that solutions to neutralize threats in urban environments require much more than just changes in the tank design philosophy, focusing on automatic sensors for detecting bombs and determining activity on their installation. “I tell all the countries in the coalition to do a great job of finding solutions that can detect and disable these types of VCA or minimize the number of people in the machines and protect them to the maximum extent.”

Materials used:
Military Technology
www.monch.com
www.rand.org
www.rheinmetall-defence.com
Author:
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Hikar
    Hikar April 30 2014 09: 22
    +8
    Something against this background our modernized T-72 B3 looks very sad.
    Oh why not upgrade to t-90 MS level
    1. Canep
      Canep April 30 2014 12: 02
      0
      Quote: Hnikar
      Oh why not upgrade to t-90 MS level

      The engine needs to be changed, it’s easier to build a new one.
      1. Alekseev
        Alekseev April 30 2014 15: 38
        +1
        Quote: Hnikar
        Oh why not upgrade to t-90 MS level

        Quote: Canep
        The engine needs to be changed, it’s easier to build a new one.

        But what, there are motors different in size? what
        No, b99, b92f are just forced (increased boost pressure) version b84 and nothing "new" needs to be built.
        The layout of the T-90MS is the same as the T-72, but it differs significantly in the design of the turret, fire control system, aiming and surveillance devices, ZPU, armor housing, DZ. This tank is a new machine, and the T-72M3 underwent modernization during the overhaul.
        But to buy for the Russian Federation the expensive T-90MS really it makes no sense if on the approach of MBT on the Armata platform.
        Relatively simple and cheap T-72M3 maintains the current combat readiness of tank units (replacement instead of exhausted motor resources and completely morally obsolete)
    2. Cruorvult
      Cruorvult April 30 2014 12: 23
      +2
      Because UVZ stated that the modernization of 72 is B2 (b3) - 2/3 of the 90a price. MS is generally an export model, AM for ours, but no one wants to spend money on them when Armata is finished.
      1. Saburov
        Saburov April 30 2014 16: 36
        20
        Quote: Hnikar
        Something against this background our modernized T-72 B3 looks very sad.
        Oh why not upgrade to t-90 MS level

        Because you are couch experts. The T-90, like the upgraded T-72, is a good, fit modern tank, as mentioned above a good hundred times, although not without flaws. Yes, in some ways it can be worse than Leopard-2 and other Western showerheads, however, Russian industry can produce it, as well as spare parts for it, and domestic repairmen know how to repair it, which is important. Shkolota, kicking on the Internet, just forgets that not millimeters of calibers and not kilometers per hour of speed are fighting. Yes, not even tanks fighting. People are at war, and the outcome of the battle depends on a huge number of factors, in particular, on the use of aviation, artillery and other types of troops, the coherence of their actions and the degree of headaches of the command. No matter how cool the tank, the turntable, armed with ATGMs, will take apart a whole column of such tins for scrap, if they are not covered from air attacks, which was brilliantly confirmed by the “Gulf War” when the vast majority of T-72 tanks were pierced with sides with cumulative ammunition. Cunning ass Americans, taking advantage of the OMS and intelligence, hit Iraqi tanks with ATGMs mounted on the Bradley, while the Iraqis learned that they were being fired after the shells started to click on their armor.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  2. Canep
    Canep April 30 2014 09: 29
    +8
    An Iraqi tank T-72 shoots at targets during a joint shooting exercise with American soldiers at the Besmaya range. These exercises allowed the Iraqi security forces to learn fast loading techniques and improve accuracy.
    And that T-72 without AZ was delivered to Iraq, that training in loading was needed.
    In my opinion, in the future MBT will be equipped with:
    Hydraulic suspension to tilt the tank.
    There will be launchers for air defense missiles, some sort of "Arrow".
    The base equipment of the tank will include mine trawls and means of self-digging, possibly they will be combined.
    Perhaps the tank will be equipped with a universal radar in the form of a phased array distributed over the tower and hull.
    A gas turbine fuel eater is likely to be abandoned in favor of the good old diesel.
    Automatic loading will become mandatory.
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 30 2014 09: 48
      +8
      Quote: Canep
      means of self-instillation

      Well, the first step is already there - IT has been standing on our tanks for half a century ...
    2. jayich
      jayich April 30 2014 10: 46
      +9
      1. Suspension hydraulics are superfluous; they haven’t come up with anything better than the good old torsion bar.
      2. A long time ago we already have the same modifications, but there is no need for them to have other cars.
      3. A mine trawl can be attached to any of our tanks, self-digging equipment has been installed on our tanks since the 60s. And so for this an engineering machine based on the tank is available, why fence the garden?
      4. Something similar is already being worked out.
      5. Gas turbines are already being removed from service (t-80), although for the north the thing is, there will be diesel on Armata.
      6. Rather, not an automatic loader, but an automatic combat module.
      By the way, if you are interested in the history of tank building in the USSR, look at the "Armor of Russia" series of programs, there are very interesting cars shown, for example, the Tank Destroyer.
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 30 2014 12: 06
        +2
        Quote: jayich
        Suspension hydraulics are superfluous, they haven’t come up with anything better than the good old torsion bar.

        I disagree ... For a mass tank, yes, I need something simpler and more maintainable, but for "specialized" ones, like "mountain" ones, you can and SHARE ... as the Koreans did.


        Quote: jayich
        A mine trawl can be attached to any of our tanks,
        The guys back in the 80s were developed and tested both means of detecting mines and means of their DESTRUCTION, based on LASER TECHNOLOGIES - it is time to use them in the troops, at least the first, since the second require a lot of energy ... but when you see a mine you can either bypass it or destroy it with a shot from a gun ...
        Quote: jayich
        Gas turbines are already being removed from service (t-80), although for the north the thing is, there will be diesel on Armata.
        GTE has not yet said its last word, with the establishment of a mass production of helicopter GTEs, we, the "Klimovtsy", I am sure that there will be NEW, HIGH EFFECTIVE tank GTEs.
        Quote: jayich
        Most likely not an automatic loader, but an automatic combat module.
        The main thing is to EXTREMELY isolate the crew from the place of the ammunition shell and protect it from the consequences of the explosion of the ammunition shell ...
        1. jayich
          jayich April 30 2014 14: 23
          +2
          At the expense of specialized ones, why bother with a garden, for the highlands there are Mi-28, Ka-52 and it’s turntables, but many arms and equipment are involved in the combined-arms operation.
          We have special engineering vehicles specifically for mine clearance. Why should I hang up excess equipment?
          So I have nothing against GTD.
          I support the isolation of the crew, but here I also thought about the BMPT module, so I will call it about the artillery variant, well, etc. so to speak modularity in accordance with the task at a particular theater.
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 30 2014 21: 29
            0
            Quote: jayich
            At the expense of specialized ones, why bother with a garden, for the highlands there are Mi-28, Ka-52 and it’s turntables, but many arms and equipment are involved in the combined-arms operation.
            But how to say, the turntables will not cover the infantry with their "body", and they are not all-weather, and our modern tanks do not have large elevation and declination angles, and so they can be increased
            Quote: jayich
            We have special engineering vehicles specifically for mine clearance. Why should I hang up excess equipment?
            If they always and always kept up, it would be BEAUTY, and rut trawls on tanks are not a tribute to fashion, but a vital necessity, but they reduce the maneuverability of tanks, laser mine detectors would be lighter ...
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. PSih2097
        PSih2097 April 30 2014 12: 40
        12
        Quote: jayich
        5. Gas turbines are already being removed from service (t-80), although for the north the thing is, there will be diesel on Armata.

        no one is sending the T80 for cutting (the stools were removed at the time), Shoigu said at the conference that all the tanks that are being mothballed (which is the T-72, T-80 of all modifications) will be replaced one to one ...
        I, when I went to the training camp last year, was on a so-called excursion to the store (they drove for a hundred zinc fives (5,45x39)), there were also eightyards, which were "U", "UD" and "BV" (1100 pieces ), the colonel (did not allow them to take pictures) said that they would still be looked after for another twenty years.
        1. jayich
          jayich April 30 2014 14: 25
          +4
          Well, okay, the more stash the better. So my knowledge is a little outdated. smile
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. 52
          52 April 30 2014 18: 30
          +2
          You didn’t look right, T-80 oud is already in space, STE is a foreigner. But at, and bv stand, from time to time Chita on May 9 sees them at the exhibition, albeit in educational samples. and sometimes the question arises, what the hell is ONE in Transbaikalia? Tests from the USSR period proved the viciousness of the ideas of a turbo engine on a tank at the then existing level, especially simplicity, average speeds, real power reserve, reliability, ease of starting and warming up in low temperatures, snow cover and wind, and in summer in high dust conditions, and the same fucking cost in sovereign rubles of this "happiness"
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Alekseev
      Alekseev April 30 2014 15: 49
      +1
      Quote: Canep
      In my opinion, in the future MBT will be equipped with:

      Probably will be.
      But, in my personal opinion, of course, it would be necessary to equip, first of all, the new MBT with a 152 mm anti-tank launcher.
      It would be a qualitative breakthrough in the power of ammunition.
      Let the b / c leave not 42, but a dozen less, remove the b / c, such a caliber will damage the enemy tank and 40 kg high-explosive!
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 April 30 2014 22: 49
        0
        Quote: Alekseev
        Quote: Canep
        In my opinion, in the future MBT will be equipped with:

        Probably will be.
        But, in my personal opinion, of course, it would be necessary to equip, first of all, the new MBT with a 152 mm anti-tank launcher.
        It would be a qualitative breakthrough in the power of ammunition.
        Let the b / c leave not 42, but a dozen less, remove the b / c, such a caliber will damage the enemy tank and 40 kg high-explosive!

        what type of this?

        or this?
        1. svp67
          svp67 1 May 2014 00: 23
          +3
          Quote: PSih2097
          what type of this?

          No, like this - about. 292
      2. svp67
        svp67 1 May 2014 00: 21
        +2
        Firework hi
        Quote: Alekseev
        But, in my personal opinion, of course, it would be necessary to equip, first of all, the new MBT with a 152 mm anti-tank launcher.

        I support, but I think that now it is better to leave it for the future, and to equip new tanks with 125mm guns. As an argument - there are already a lot of 125 mm shells, they can and should be used for the training process. But at the same time, to establish the release of new 152 mm guns and shells for them. Further, when designing a new tank, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of quick re-equipment of the tank with a 152 mm gun and a MZ for its shells.
        1. Alekseev
          Alekseev 1 May 2014 10: 44
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          and new tanks equipped with 125mm guns.

          hi
          Absolutely accurate definition!
          There is nothing to add.
          We are well aware that it is impossible to reject everything that is good old and stupid, and impossible for a number of very significant reasons.
          Thank you for not making me look for photo ob. 292 to show my friend "like what". wink
          1. Dimka off
            Dimka off 1 May 2014 11: 32
            +1
            I fully support the idea of ​​equipping tanks with 152 mm guns. And I regret that Armata will not be equipped with an instrument of this caliber. Looking at the armor of tanks of potential opponents, I understand that such a caliber will be very necessary. It seems that even in the absence of penetration of armor with such a powerful shell, the crew is unlikely to survive, and if it survives it will be able to fight.
            And the question is not the topic of caliber. Maybe someone knows if there are electronic warfare systems that would look to jam the KAZ radars on tanks? Thank you for your reply.
            1. uwzek
              uwzek 1 May 2014 14: 50
              0
              On the "armature" the gun is changed without removing the cap. It is quite possible that AZ (or whatever it will call itself) supports different calibers ...
        2. Dimka off
          Dimka off 1 May 2014 11: 35
          +1
          there are already a lot of 125 mm shells, they can and should be used for the training process.

          Even if a 152 mm caliber gun is adopted, then tanks with a 125 mm caliber will not go anywhere. They will remain in service for a very long time, as an auxiliary caliber for more powerful tanks. And the shells will not be lost. And not just they will not disappear, but will be issued further.
  3. Alexey M
    Alexey M April 30 2014 09: 56
    +1
    You just need to decide what the tank is for. To fight against your kind, then this is one car, infantry to drive another, to storm the third city. This is why you have to dance. If you need tanks like Abrams with reinforced armor to fight armored vehicles, then for infantry and fight against partisans of 60 tons of armor, it seems like the extra mobility is lost there it is better to use other protection, but for the city something like a BMPT will probably do just fine.
    1. Cruorvult
      Cruorvult April 30 2014 12: 28
      +5
      The fact is that a tank has always been a universal tool, it never had a problem either to be infantry defensive, or against other tanks, it was always a universal, and the BB fired in a tank and a fugue in a pillbox.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. svp67
      svp67 April 30 2014 12: 37
      +2
      Quote: Alexey M
      You just need to decide what the tank is for.

      We DECIDED this at the time of its creation ... No one will ever offer anything new - this is the "shield and sword" of the infantry .... Another thing is that both MBT and specialized vehicles are needed for reconnaissance, for mountains, for battles in the city ... in the latter case, it could be tank support vehicles ...
      Quote: Alexey M
      something like BMPT
      it is necessary to teach them how to solve the problems of the near radius of air defense ... and then they will not have PRICES, as support vehicles ...
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv April 30 2014 14: 03
        +5
        Quote: svp67
        this is the "shield and sword" of the infantry .... Another thing is that both MBT and specialized vehicles are needed for reconnaissance, for mountains, for battles in the city ... in the latter case, it can be tank support vehicles ...

        Sergei - good
        Short and clear, there’s nothing to add.

        The author of the article:
        Alex Alexeev, thanks for the systematized material, but the title doesn't quite match the content. This is not "Further ways of developing the main battle tank" but, most likely, "Design solutions for the current modernization of the tank fleet of foreign countries."
        hi
  4. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 April 30 2014 09: 57
    23
    Russian MBT losses in urban battles in Chechnya in 1995 were an ominous bode that did not bode well (quoted from the article)

    Here's how sickening it is to read about the Russian losses in Chechnya in 1994-95, to those who like to slander these facts and make a name for themselves for the death of those guys who were stupidly thrown to death (but simply framed and betrayed), I want to remind you that these losses are known didn’t come from the fact that there were bad tanks, but from completely different reasons.
    The most basic of them are:

    1. The fool of the then leadership of the country and the fool of the Minister of Defense, General Grachev, in particular, who, apart from his bragging and satisfying his idiotic ambitions, did nothing sensible then for his subordinates to fulfill their combat missions.
    2. The staffing of poorly trained, or completely unprepared personnel from hastily assembled units.
    3. Disgusting preparation of equipment for the upcoming actions (more precisely, its almost complete absence).
    4. Poorly organized command and control of units in battle, unclear tasks, poorly organized reconnaissance, lack of interaction and normal material support necessary for troops (including armored) to carry out their tasks.

    Specifically on tanks (due to high losses), a special commission was created and demonstration firing at tanks at the range was conducted, during which everything "surfaced".
    It was not the technology that was to blame, but the people.

    1. andj61
      andj61 April 30 2014 10: 39
      +6
      I completely agree! You can’t send armored units into battle at random, without reconnaissance, without providing fire support, completely unprepared.
      But, apparently, the proper conclusions have already been made. And the tank biathlon that we hold is very helpful in enhancing the professional skills of tankers.
    2. La-5
      La-5 April 30 2014 10: 39
      10
      I support that equipment in Chechnya perished not because of poor performance, but because of a mediocre and "captive" use.
      1. cosmos111
        cosmos111 April 30 2014 11: 25
        +5
        Quote: La-5
        I support that equipment in Chechnya perished not because of poor performance, but because of a mediocre and "captive" use.

        1. Czechs beat mainly, from close range, into the upper hemisphere and hatches of OBT T-72, T-80, as a protected name (((
        2.Our BMP 1.2.with bulletproof armor, could not support MBT fire with 30 mm guns, at the firing point, on the upper floors of buildings (they were destroyed from one hit by an RPG-7 ((((
        design features, MBT (the most protected frontal projection and the name of the upper hemisphere)) and infantry fighting vehicles (generally not suitable for urban combat) also played a significant role in large losses ((((

        the rest is listed, and more than once .....
        1. La-5
          La-5 April 30 2014 15: 17
          +2
          Why are you telling me this? I know very well where the Czechs shot.
        2. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 April 30 2014 17: 55
          +3
          Quote: cosmos111
          .Our BMP 1.2.with bulletproof armor, could not support MBT fire of 30 mm guns, at the firing point, on the upper floors of buildings (they were destroyed from one hit by RPG-7 ((((


          Andrey, I welcome everyone! hi

          Why are you writing that BMP-2 could not support the fire of its 2A42 tanks and infantry?

          Here is an excerpt from the TTX BMP-2:

          Caliber and brand of gun 30 mm 2A42
          Type of gun rifled small-caliber automatic gun
          Gun ammunition 500 (armor-piercing, high-explosive fragmentation)
          HV angles, deg. −5 ... + 74 °
          Corners GN, hail. 360 °
          Firing range, km to 4 on ground
          up to 2,5 by air.

          And you want to say that these capabilities of the 2A42 gun are not enough to hit targets located on the upper floors?
          I do not understand...
          In general, the 2 itself appeared during the war in Afghanistan (by the way, BMD-2, too), as a replacement for the BMP-1 (here it has gun pointing angles that are just not enough to hit such targets).
          In addition, a BMP-2 mod with enhanced protection (BMP-2D) was created for Afghanistan, and if what happened in Chechnya were taken seriously, those who were assigned to the service would have prepared personnel and equipment for this purpose, then there would be no defeat.



          BMP-2D and its crew at rest. Afghanistan.
    3. Argon
      Argon April 30 2014 11: 11
      +8
      It is necessary to write / remind about these losses, as well as about the reasons that led to them, in order to remember, and never allow it. And even 20 years have not passed since we took Grozny - "by the forces of one airborne regiment" - and some "hot heads" are already going to "reach Kiev in a couple of days" -.
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 April 30 2014 18: 09
        +2
        Quote: Argon
        It is necessary to write / remind about these losses


        I agree. But above all, in articles relating to organizational matters for commanders of all levels. From the squadron to the brigade (division, army), as well as other people responsible for planning and preparing combat operations.
        As well as cadets of military universities, sergeant schools, etc.
        But specifically in this article, I think this is inappropriate.
    4. PSih2097
      PSih2097 April 30 2014 12: 53
      +4
      Quote: wanderer_032
      1. The fool of the then leadership of the country and the fool of the Minister of Defense, General Grachev, in particular, who, apart from his bragging and satisfying his idiotic ambitions, did nothing sensible then for his subordinates to fulfill their combat missions.

      the leadership of the Defense Ministry, then it was believed that it was worth the army to appear, then the Chechens themselves Dudaev and his minions dragged, what happened as a result, everyone knows.
      And the result is that the military fought with each other (I believe that there are no former military men), who have learned and served in the same army as the Soviet.
    5. gallville
      gallville 4 May 2014 14: 07
      +1
      Interesting video. But it is doubtful.
      1. Returning car after firing - it is not visible at all on the DZ tower - 44 seconds.
      2. For 45 sec. where the "master" shows the holes on the right, the "curtain" and DZ contact 5 are visible behind it.
      3. In favor of the DZ, contact-5 is also indicated by the fact that it was holding back shots from a 125mm gun. Because Contact-1 just cannot do this.
      In the 1990s, DZ contact-5 was available on the T-80UD (already actively written off and even those were in the series of 40 pieces), as well as on the latest modifications of the T-90A (of which there were not more than the first ones).
      As you know, neither one nor the other was in Chechnya-95.
      In Chechnya, there were T-62 (without any dz), T-72B, T-80BV and U. All DZ contact-1.
      Distinctive feature of contact-1 in the fact that before the battle it is necessary to stuff the waste packages into the cells in time, this was about a day in Grozny for these days (and they didn’t expect an attack), Contact-5 is devoid of this drawback.

      Therefore, the video is somewhat out of topic. Starting from shelling a threat that is "not relevant" for Chechnya and ending with the substitution of a "test subject".
      That in terms of DZ, be contact-5 instead of contact-1, there were fewer if not many, but this is the life of a soldier - so it's worth it.
  5. Wedmak
    Wedmak April 30 2014 10: 57
    +6
    1. Installation on ALL tanks of active protection of the "Arena" type
    2. Installation on ALL tanks of a new dynamic protection
    3. Permanent exercises on the interaction of tanks in a city, forest, open area, with other types of troops. One tank in the city = dead tank.
    4. Installation of the latest sights and auxiliary equipment on ALL tanks.
    5. Training of tank commanders, companies and officers in tactics of using armored vehicles.

    This is what they forgot about and did not want to do during the storming of Grozny. That's where such losses come from.
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 April 30 2014 12: 56
      +2
      Quote: Wedmak
      This is what they forgot about and did not want to do during the storming of Grozny. That's where such losses come from.

      Quote: Wedmak
      3. Permanent exercises on the interaction of tanks in a city, forest, open area, with other types of troops. One tank in the city = dead tank.

      covering infantry tanks, and not just infantry, but assault units.
  6. Klim2011
    Klim2011 April 30 2014 11: 23
    +2
    To summarize the article, the further development of MBT will go through the modernization of existing samples. The creation of new platforms is apparently not being conducted anywhere, or it is not advertised as Armata
    1. mister2013
      mister2013 April 30 2014 12: 44
      +2
      The Germans have long been (Leopard 3). But everything is classified.
      1. 290980
        290980 April 30 2014 13: 38
        +2
        The Germans have long been (Leopard 3). But everything is classified.
        laughing

        if everything is classified, where does infa come from ???
        1. Bosk
          Bosk 1 May 2014 01: 06
          0
          If I'm not mistaken, then the first info about Leopard-3 appeared in the 90s of some year, that for a long time they "lead" it ... so, too, they still cannot decide ...
  7. Kar Karych
    Kar Karych April 30 2014 11: 26
    +4
    Despite the fact that ABRAMS tanks shone in urban battles in Iraq, the experience gained nevertheless revealed certain shortcomings in situational awareness, defense and firepower.


    Well, if the example of how tanks drove an army armed mainly with automatic weapons is brilliant, there are no words.
  8. Poppy
    Poppy April 30 2014 11: 53
    +9
    An Iraqi tank T-72 shoots at targets during a joint shooting exercise with American soldiers at the Besmaya range. These exercises allowed the Iraqi security forces to learn fast loading techniques and improve accuracy.

    what can tankers in a tank with an automatic loader in terms of the speed of this very loading learn from Americans using manual loading?
  9. goose
    goose April 30 2014 12: 10
    +4
    Quote: Wedmak
    1. Installation on ALL tanks of "Arena" type active protection 2. Installation of new reactive armor on ALL tanks 3. Constant exercises on the interaction of tanks in a city, forest, open area, with other types of troops. One tank in the city = dead tank. 4. Installation of the latest sights and auxiliary equipment on ALL tanks. 5. Training tank commanders, companies and officers in the tactics of using armored vehicles. This is what they forgot and did not want to do during the storming of Grozny. This is where such losses come from.

    And yet, our military agreed that even T-62M with DZ would have been suitable for such operations - its reservation was sufficient against RPG-7. T-72 and T-80 are excessively armed and armored for such operations.
    A thermal imager is needed, of course, but it is easy to damage. Need protection.
    For inexperienced gunners and missiles, a laser rangefinder (not mounted on the barrel) is needed.
    For shooting guns you can 12,7 or 14,5 instead of 7,62, here the rate of fire is not always important, and there are always few shells.
    Remote installation with a machine gun, even 7,62
    A camera or review cameras are needed.
    An operational means of communication with the infantry. Anyone needs, even a cell phone, even a VHF, even a telephone aft. 1,5-5 km better than VHF.
    I want a hydrodynamic suspension, but not necessarily. For shooting from reverse ramps, you can carry a ramp with you or do it.
    An automatic transmission is probably needed for recruits.
    1. Klim2011
      Klim2011 April 30 2014 14: 57
      +2
      Add 3 kopecks:
      http://topwar.ru/19402-o-cheloveke-zabyli.html#comment-id-929737
      A fairly detailed discussion was about the necessary improvements.
  10. tchoni
    tchoni April 30 2014 13: 59
    +3
    From the article, it becomes obvious that the mass of MBT should not go beyond 55 tons and ideally should be less (logistical difficulties for Amers and Britons are mentioned in the article and the dominance of the leopard in these conditions). In this light, the high of Russian tanks becomes very explainable. with a little modernization (in terms of increasing crew survivability in the event of a detonation of ammunition), our vehicles are ideal for a mobile army. And the most interesting is that the next generation of bourgeois tanks will be easier.
    The second point stated in the article (it’s a pity, however, without detailed calculations) - the tank significantly facilitates the conduct of assault operations and reduces its losses.
  11. Logos
    Logos April 30 2014 15: 05
    +1
    Quote: wanderer_032

    Specifically on tanks (due to high losses), a special commission was created and demonstration firing at tanks at the range was conducted, during which everything "surfaced".
    It was not the technology that was to blame, but the people.

    In the presented video, all 5 rounds of cumulative shells were fired into the frontal projection of the tank.
    Have the tanks been tested for the stability of the side and aft projection, as well as the roof of the MTO and the turret to hit? If not, then this commission and its firing are complete bullshit and fraud, since in an urban battle the tank tries to knock out the least protected areas, and not into the ultra-protected VLD and the forehead of the tower
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv April 30 2014 15: 40
      10
      Quote: Logos
      in urban combat, they try to knock out a tank in the least protected areas, rather than over-protected VLD and the forehead of the tower

      Yes.
      But if the same T-72B is dressed and equipped according to all the rules in "Contact-1" - a bearded man with a "seven" stops it ... believe me. They only hit the stern or hatches.

      DZ has the right to life.
      "Turtle" from Kontakt-1 is the best option for installing a remote sensing device from the existing domestic modifications. As crazy as it sounds - but, unfortunately, it is SO.
      (namely, the placement of blocks DZ):
      1. Logos
        Logos April 30 2014 17: 04
        +1
        I’m not saying that DZ is ineffective, I just doubt that the tests were carried out correctly.
        As for the confrontation between a bearded man with an RPG 7 against a tank with a "Contact-1", then it all depends on the range of RPG ammunition used. As far as I know, even in the 80s, ammunition was developed for RPGs to deal with remote sensing.

        But I don’t know what kind of grenades the RPGs were armed with during the battles in Grozny, and how Russian tanks used there were protected. If you are in the know, I will listen to you with pleasure.
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv April 30 2014 17: 37
          +3
          Quote: Logos
          But I don’t know what kind of grenades the RPGs were armed with during the battles in Grozny, and how Russian tanks used there were protected. If you are in the know, I will listen to you with pleasure.

          Sorry, I don’t know your name ...
          About this has already been said so much on the site)))
          Look at the previous topics or comments of our tankers in PM, there are a lot of pros in VO ...

          -About the "seven": the Czechs used those grenades that they got from the warehouses, ie. mainly PG-7V.
          -About protection, I repeat: if the T-72B was dressed and equipped according to all the rules - it was difficult to stop ... except Contact exists a set of measures to increase the survivability of a combat vehicle, he voiced it more than once, there is nothing extraordinary there.
          And in the first assault anyhow they came in — some without boxes, who slap them on the go ... no comments .... In the second assault, EVERYTHING was different.

          If you are interested in protecting T-72: please see in the PM article about T-72Б3, there is little about the experience of T-72Б.
          hi
          1. gallville
            gallville 4 May 2014 14: 19
            0
            Quote: Aleks tv
            And in the first assault anyhow they came in — some without boxes, who slap them on the go ... no comments .... In the second assault, EVERYTHING was different.

            If you don’t go into the organization’s questions (how much can you already chew).
            Then you can pay attention to the fact that the process of preparing contact-1 is somewhat long (about a day if memory serves) - this is already a brick in the "design features".
    2. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 April 30 2014 18: 15
      +1
      Quote: Logos
      In the presented video, all 5 rounds of cumulative shells were fired into the frontal projection of the tank.


      You inattentively watched the video, look again and again ...
      I advise you to pay attention to the fenders of the tanks.
  12. Free wind
    Free wind April 30 2014 16: 14
    +4
    The Iraqis were not badly armed, and not only with small arms, they simply sold out to the Americans. Happy holiday to all !!!!!!
  13. Logos
    Logos April 30 2014 16: 58
    +2
    Quote: Free Wind
    The Iraqis were not badly armed, and not only with small arms, they simply sold out to the Americans. Happy holiday to all !!!!!!

    Interestingly, the Iraqis could oppose the Americans in a night battle, where the American thermal imagers saw Iraqi tanks with 3000m, and the infrared devices of Iraqi T72 saw the Americans with only 1200m. Knowing this, the Americans tried to advance at night and the initiative, due to air superiority, allowed them to do this
    1. Signaller
      Signaller April 30 2014 17: 52
      +1
      For such a case, even an infantryman with RPG was enough or mines installed at the time and place. And the fact that IRAQ fought with the United States. That Indians also fought with someone. Clearly the matter is where they are. We are talking about something else. And the Czechs did us without any tanks at first. Ile forgot. Day and night. There was definitely not enough Abrahams there in Grozny, and even he didn’t go anywhere. Bikes are next, no more. A tank is a cart for a gun. So said Grabin. I fully support him. Cart for the gun, no more.
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 April 30 2014 18: 27
        +2
        Quote: Signaller
        A tank is a cart for a gun.


        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpbPRLusGtY

        The one who was sitting in this building also thought so, but did not understand what a tank cannon is capable of at a distance of 1,5-2km by firing an OFS.
        Peace be upon him ... bully
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. ar-ren
          ar-ren 1 May 2014 00: 28
          0
          How long have you been a fan of militants? Your tank is ISIS.
          1. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 1 May 2014 08: 54
            0
            Quote: ar-ren
            How long have you been a fan of militants? Your tank is ISIS.


            I just gave an example of what a tank can do with its competent use.
            A tank is a well-armed BM and with a trained crew it poses a serious danger on the battlefield, we must remember this.
            To fanatics as religious, as well as political, etc., I treat them as enemies that pose a serious danger. This video once again confirms that war is not a toy.
      2. Absurdidat
        Absurdidat April 30 2014 21: 09
        +3
        Well, not that the "Czechs" made us straight, here they thank the "Czechs", they must say and probably said to Yeltsin. "Khasavyurt world" - have you heard about this?
      3. Bosk
        Bosk 1 May 2014 01: 11
        +1
        Well, on account of the fact that the "Czechs" made us ... here it was rather our generals who did everything for them, but the so-called "Czechs" only pulled the trigger.
      4. andrewvlg
        andrewvlg 1 May 2014 11: 56
        0
        Quote: Signaller
        A tank is a cart for a gun. So said Grabin. I fully support him. Cart for the gun, no more.

        The truth about the cart! At one time, at the dawn of tank building, there may have been such an opinion. But already during the combat use of more advanced tanks, it was clearly revealed that the tank is a machine that has unique properties in view of the combination weapons, armor and mobility.
        "Cart with a cannon" - to some extent may refer to an SPG, but not to a tank.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. gallville
      gallville 4 May 2014 14: 26
      +1
      Quote: Logos
      Interestingly, the Iraqis could oppose the Americans in a night battle, where the American thermal imagers saw Iraqi tanks with 3000m, and the Iraqi T72 infrared devices saw the Americans in all from 1200m.

      They have not seen since 1200 - export modification either.
      Just relying on tank surveillance tools is very Arabic.
      Arabs, as you know, generally love tanks - they don’t know how to use, but they love repeat
      So the Arabs just needed to organize reconnaissance - say some sort of retractable station (preferably a mobile one), and when revealing an American convoy for target designation, cover it with artillery (which was also set up by the USSR), and not climb into a tank duel.
      For some reason, our statutes somehow suggest this idea, why the Arab generals who graduated from Soviet schools did not use this remains a mystery.
  14. Signaller
    Signaller April 30 2014 17: 46
    +5
    Such tanks and without protection. One hit in the track from an RPG and it is motionless. Next, a bottle with a solution of gasoline with a solarium and a couple of matches and it is a torch. But scientists think. Well, let them think. As the saying goes smart, the law is not written. You have to be easier. That's interesting, why the T-34 is the best WWII tank. ??? Yes, because it was simple and cheap. They were made like needles. And if so many wisdom, as in the TIGER ??? So the war did not last long. Not the tank is important, but their number. There are always enough swamps, mines and guns on these tanks. Well, infantry with RPGs now generally, on every meter. By the way, in the Doomsday War, the world was depressed. With what speed did the armored forces decrease. Type in 7 days, 700 pieces somewhere. And all type of squeak. . Therefore, personal opinion, the cheaper the better. And most importantly - all come to this one. If anything.
  15. homosum20
    homosum20 April 30 2014 18: 17
    +5
    I am a "pinjak" (reserve major) from the point of view of a professional military. But no matter how much I talked to the pros, most agree that the thickness of the armor, the caliber of the gun, the power of the engine, the logistics of supply are an important factor in a big war. And in a direct clash of disparate combat groups that make up a local conflict, it is not tanks that are fighting - people are fighting.
    There are a lot of materials on youtube about how the Americans are fighting in Afghanistan. If ours were so fought in the Great Patriotic War, we would now write comments in German.
  16. 52
    52 April 30 2014 18: 55
    +1
    In general, the theme of tanks is endless, like the song of an akyn or a Yakut on a boat: "I am swimming in the forest, I am singing, Vitim is swimming, I am singing, the deer came out, I am singing a deer song, the geologist on the shore of the village of re." , I will swim to the turn, I will sing a new song ". And the article specifically "-", just a little bit, and no specifics, I think that the thread from "Hustler" would have aroused more interest and seething. Though this thread would be off topic. laughing
  17. dmit-xnumx
    dmit-xnumx April 30 2014 19: 07
    +1
    The news flashed information that on May XNUMX at the Parade "Armata" was shown, but then it somehow died out ...
    Everyone who had the honor of wearing shoulder straps, with the upcoming Holiday! (who only has to be guys, you have someone to look up to!).
  18. tasha
    tasha April 30 2014 19: 26
    +4
    Perhaps, before discussing further development paths for MBT, it is necessary to at least outline the range of tasks that this MBT should fulfill.
    For example,
    1. Patrolling along the route ... during road works to ensure blah blah safety .. (see the signature under the first photo)
    Need MBT here? Hardly. It’s expensive ... Here we need a protected engineering machine, equipped with a complex for detecting landmines, mines, separatists, and, well, something shooting and destroying.
    2. Escort of the convoy? And here it is unlikely. There would also be something moderately nimble and protected, so that if necessary it could detect and shoot and interfere with the interference .. And best of all - a mega-truck like this (just kidding)
    3. Storming the city.
    A bulldozer is needed here. And behind - self-propelled gun. Probably...
    4. Roadblock to maintain.
    It would be cheaper to drag an armored module on a trailer or helicopter and bury it on a hill. And in the module so that - a stove and a shower.
    5. Let's continue together? About the trenches there or about the raids behind enemy lines.

    It seems to me that if you run into a very distant future, then you can read about the fate of any super-duper monsters from S. Lem - "Invincible". In short - as a result of the evolution of machines, small primitive mechanisms with collective intelligence survived. It may be logical. Imagine - the enemy is riding on iron garbage, armor rattles, twirls a gun. And then flies rain from the barrel on him. And each fly bites off a gram of armor and drags it to the ferrous metal collection point.
    1. Signaller
      Signaller April 30 2014 19: 55
      +1
      That's right. We do not need this bastard -He heard for kilometers. And whoever hears, he will understand and leave. and then catch him. Not we need to slowly. And most importantly with a warm shower and a jigsaw. I completely agree with the comment.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. gallville
      gallville 4 May 2014 14: 31
      0
      You directly described merkavu to all 5 points suitable request
      And who will break through to the grove and ride through the mountains of Afghanistan?
  19. Signaller
    Signaller April 30 2014 19: 51
    +1
    I read it again. Like the US has super tanks. The question is WHERE. In Desert Storm War ??? Or what else is it called ??. Here it is clear that the distance to detect the enemy has the main indicators. An even table (desert) and war on it. It is clear who saw earlier and sent the shell faster, and victory. But we have different conditions. As they say, "It was exactly on paper, but in life there were mountains and ravines." From this and dance. Both Chechnya and Afghanistan. (There was nothing for tanks in Afghanistan, so to support the pants). Different conditions, but they fought. Of course, not easy, but there were also victories and defeats. We shake it off. If we are winding up with you, then the constructor, the developers have already wound it for a long time. And not alone. The latest events in Syria also show how our tanks are fighting. There are such films on YouTube. Look, anyone is interested.
    1. ssskalinin
      ssskalinin 4 May 2014 23: 38
      0
      As the experience of the combat use of the Abrams in Iraq has shown, their dust protection is weak. In short, 40 minutes driving through the desert 20 minutes cleansing, blowing MTO. Efficiency was almost zero during the dust storm
  20. mvv
    mvv April 30 2014 20: 07
    +1
    Another disguised Abrams ad? For urban battles, you need a tank support vehicle together with MBT, you need tactics that have been worked out at training grounds and mockups. And not arguments on the topic "how can we sell old stuff to Indians and Pakistanis and then modernize it."
  21. SPACE
    SPACE April 30 2014 22: 05
    0
    Everything has already been measured, calculated and thought out ... http: //topwar.ru/39776-koncepciya-karagach.html Inexpensive, effective and profitable! It remains to put on the conveyor.
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv April 30 2014 22: 22
      +1
      Quote: SPACE
      Everything is already measured, calculated and thought out ..

      Greetings, Demian.
      hi
      I remember the idea of ​​Karagach, like many.
      My thoughts are the same as in those comments))).

      Happy Holiday. We have already 1 May.
      drinks
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 1 May 2014 07: 28
        +1
        Good afternoon Alexey.
        And you with the holiday 1May.
        Yesterday I have a personal holiday that today smoothly flows))) into a public holiday, but we can’t reduce the pace drinks
        Quote: Aleks tv
        I remember the idea of ​​Karagach

        Confirm the correctness of the idea, in one way, to create a couple of experimental machines and test them with fire.
  22. domjoly
    domjoly April 30 2014 22: 31
    +1
    The further direction of the development of the tanks is obvious, the question is that the improvements listed in the article bring the cost of the tank closer to the cost of the aircraft, as in the case of the latest German tank, which, according to some estimates, costs about 35musd. Perhaps this is a question for specialists in military tactics, are these improvements worth the price of tank destruction by infantry, aircraft, self-propelled guns. In my opinion, from the point of view not of combined arms combat, but with regard to actions in the city, to identify enemy firing points, it is definitely worth exploring the possibility of using a crewless high-armored version of the tank.
  23. k_ply
    k_ply 1 May 2014 01: 38
    +2
    Quote: Signaller
    Such tanks and without protection. One hit in the track from an RPG and it is motionless. Next, a bottle with a solution of gasoline with a solarium and a couple of matches and it is a torch. But scientists think. Well, let them think. As the saying goes smart, the law is not written. You have to be easier. That's interesting, why the T-34 is the best WWII tank. ??? Yes, because it was simple and cheap. They were made like needles. And if so many wisdom, as in the TIGER ??? So the war did not last long. Not the tank is important, but their number. There are always enough swamps, mines and guns on these tanks. Well, infantry with RPGs now generally, on every meter. By the way, in the Doomsday War, the world was depressed. With what speed did the armored forces decrease. Type in 7 days, 700 pieces somewhere. And all type of squeak. . Therefore, personal opinion, the cheaper the better. And most importantly - all come to this one. If anything.

    - Original! Is there any experience of setting fire to modern tanks with fuel and lubricants, or getting into a caterpillar moving along an intersection and snarling a tank, say from 200m, from an RPG?
    Like a new criterion "cheap tanks = cheap tankers and their lives." Maybe we will return to bows and spears? "if that", in general, the war for the dormitory will give a ride.
    Right! - Wisdom is not for you.
    1. Free wind
      Free wind 1 May 2014 03: 15
      0
      What bows? they can break, the bowstring can break. It’s easier to be !!!! Dubin !!!!!!! ideal, well, or a boomerang, threw it, he returned, and you can dig a hole for them! Happy holiday to everyone !!!!
    2. k_ply
      k_ply 1 May 2014 11: 41
      +2
      Tanks with relatively thin SINGLE-LAYER armor and without heat and thermal insulation, like their gasoline engines (German cars), have long gone.
      The Soviet doctrine of the use of tanks assumed their massive use on the European theater of war and against the PRC. Without mounted dynamic protection mounted on top of the main armor, in essence, Soviet tanks were “naked”, i.e. quite vulnerable.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  24. Abkby
    Abkby 1 May 2014 03: 49
    +1
    Quote: dmit-52
    The news flashed information that on May XNUMX at the Parade "Armata" was shown, but then it somehow died out ...

    Yes, on May 9, only 2015 was promised. At the anniversary parade.
  25. Free wind
    Free wind 1 May 2014 04: 26
    +1
    In order to make the tank of the future. you need to determine what a tank is. For example, now we have a definition of a tank, this is: a machine operating in cooperation, and with the support of other arms of the army. About this definition was the French before the war. They made infantry tanks, cavalry tanks. during the war we determined: a tank, this is an independent combat unit !!!!! Able to act in cooperation well, etc. Examples when one tank! performed great feats in the Second World War, the mass. My personal opinion is that this is the most correct definition. The tank should be protected as much as possible, it should protect its crew as much as possible. Our country is not an anthill, every person needs to be protected, every warrior needs to be protected. Tank defense, this is primarily armor! But with the armor, the UVZ designers darken specifically. How the MTO of the T-90 tank, with a total weight of about 3 tons, outweighs the over-protected frontal projection of the tank, the designers say that the thickness of the forehead armor is almost a meter, BUT THE CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THE TANK, IN THE AREA OF THE SECOND REAR ROLLER !!!! And then what in front?
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 1 May 2014 09: 28
      +1
      Quote: Free Wind
      In order to make the tank of the future. you need to determine what a tank is.


      It has long been decided. The tank is a universal combat vehicle in use, with which you can perform a wide variety of combat missions in combat operations of various nature and scale. From local conflicts to global war.

      A tank using its weapons can hit a very wide range of targets, from manpower to targets such as:
      1. The fortified firing points of infantry and artillery (bunker, bunker, etc.)
      2. Almost all ground vehicles of the enemy, for various purposes (tanks, self-propelled guns, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, etc.)
      3. Hit the low flying air targets.
      4. Hit the surface targets.

      At the same time, tanks can be used in any composition, from a single vehicle attached to reinforce an infantry unit to individual tank (mechanized) units capable of performing independent combat missions.
      Having ample room for maneuver, tanks can be used in almost any terrain and in almost any climatic and meteorological conditions.
      The tank is equally good, both in the offensive and in defense. It all depends on how to use it.
      The highest efficiency in the use of these combat vehicles can only be achieved by high technical and tactical training of the crews.
      Only then is this combat vehicle capable of showing what it is fully capable of.
      And if boobies sit in it and boobies dispose of it, then she will not be able to show anything.
      1. Free wind
        Free wind 1 May 2014 15: 03
        0
        That is, one tank can be used as part of an infantry unit, but I’m saying that the tank is an independent combat unit. And it can naturally be used in interaction with other military branches !!!!
      2. tasha
        tasha 1 May 2014 16: 21
        +1
        Dear Wanderer_032. What you wrote is certainly correct. And about the strategic bombers, one figure wrote the right thing. Probably, they wrote the same correct things about airships, and about machine guns, and about bows. But the world does not stand still, the 21st century in the yard actually. If we list items 1-4, so they can be attributed to the modern infantry division.
        I am not writing "remember", but pay attention to the war in Spain. There, it became clear (plus Khalkhin-Gol) that tanks with bulletproof armor (with high technical and tactical training of crews) against new rapid-fire anti-tank guns are doomed (I am not writing about the development of infantry vehicles). Imagine, but these tanks did not appear out of thin air. There is no such button in life as in a computer game - to create a lot of tanks ...
        This is what I am for. Now the country is building new tanks, it spends money, it conducts development of different generals for technical requirements. Generals, they are like that - they would have something bigger and more terrible, but colored in parades. And the lobby of the tank builders has not been canceled.
        Will it turn out that the resources go wrong ....
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 1 May 2014 23: 01
          0
          Quote: tasha
          Pay attention to the war in Spain. It became clear there (plus Khalkhin-Gol) that tanks with bulletproof armor (with high technical and tactical training of crews) were doomed against new fast-firing anti-tank vehicles (I am not writing about the development of anti-tank vehicles).


          All types of armored vehicles were developed only in order to ensure the actions of infantry on the battlefield and reduce the casualties of their army in battle.
          As for the war in Spain, etc., it is quite obvious that such a thing appeared there as a lack of understanding of the tactical situation in a particular situation and a lack of flexibility in tactical thinking to carry out the task (template actions strictly according to the charter and instructions). Which already indicates that those tankmen had no high tactical training.
          Now let's take another example, this is 1941. when German tank troops were not armed with anti-projectile tanks, they passed half of Russia. Despite the fact that we were armed with 45-mm anti-tank guns (with a high rate of fire), which penetrated these tanks right through. And also in the arsenal of the Red Army, at that time, the T-34 and KV tanks, against which the German tanks of that period of the war, were plywood boxes. Even the BT and T-26 tanks were armed with a 45-mm cannon (analogue of the Magpie), with pretty good ballistic performance characteristics at that time. And the fact that the Germans in their battered tanks (and their best cars at that time were the Pz-3 with a 37-mm gun (analogous to the Pak-36 PTO) and the Pz-4 with a 75-mm short-barreled gun, but these tanks were on Vostochny front, very few) have achieved such results, it proves that the Germans trained their tankers very well. This is a high tactical training.

          And about the wasted money and resources, not all generals are the ones you wrote. Among them there are quite sensible and reasonable people.
          Otherwise, our country would not exist for a long time.
        2. Andrey77
          Andrey77 8 May 2014 16: 34
          0
          Will not work. You tend to the fact that the tank appeared - the development of the VET began? Or are you an enemy of tanks in operational use (like me)? And if it is stupid because of money - there will be no tanks, they will plunder. More specifically.
  26. psiho117
    psiho117 1 May 2014 16: 37
    0
    Quote: Alekseev
    to buy for the Russian Federation an expensive T-90MS really it makes no sense if on the approach of MBT on the Armata platform.

    Do you really believe that the army will receive at least a dozen new tanks in the next 5-7 years? The full release of Almaty is still very far away, and the troops need the modern one now.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 8 May 2014 16: 27
      0
      Not needed right now.
  27. psiho117
    psiho117 1 May 2014 17: 20
    -2
    Quote: Signaller
    I read it again. Type USA tanks are super. Question WHERE. In the war, Desert Storm ??? Or what else is it called ??. It is clear that the distance to detect the enemy has the main indicators. Flat table (desert) and war on it. Clearly, the one who saw earlier and sent the shell faster, is victory. But we have other conditions.

    oh pichalbyad ... the Americans make their tanks under the enemy’s theater of operations, and we are old-fashioned, under Mother Russia.
    So draw your own conclusions.
    1. Countermeasure
      Countermeasure 10 May 2014 12: 54
      +1
      I apologize, but having such a length of borders and territory ..... we will naturally make tanks for Mother Russia. That is, in accordance with the country's defensive doctrine, and not with the offensive one like the United States.
  28. Andrey77
    Andrey77 8 May 2014 16: 25
    +1
    "Russian MBT losses in urban battles in Chechnya in 1995 became an ominous omen that did not promise anything good"
    --
    The author is lying. The irreparable loss of MBT is small. The holes from the RPG are sealed up and the equipment is back in operation. I can throw examples when the same car was listed as dead, but fought on the streets of Grozny for almost the entire campaign.
  29. Countermeasure
    Countermeasure 10 May 2014 13: 02
    0
    In my opinion, the most successful concept of MBT of the future is presented here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZbqsYYapW4.
  30. Jackofshadow
    Jackofshadow 8 June 2014 23: 46
    0
    Tanks force))
  31. Alexander91304
    Alexander91304 17 June 2014 11: 49
    0
    My French colleagues say that the Leclerc tank is a great vehicle for sloping from the front line. One km of journey is equal to one hour MOT, something like that, which is why tankers love him. They say that with such a tank, the time spent in battle is significantly reduced, not only due to its grandiose characteristics, but due to the repair time. In general, the car is beautiful! Democratic! )