What are tanks afraid of?

What are tanks afraid of?A modern army needs armored vehicles of a new type.

During the reform of the Russian army, the military department reduces the number of times 20 tanks in the troops (from 40 thousand to two thousand) and does not plan new purchases of armored vehicles. First Deputy Minister of Defense Vladimir Popovkin announced that the modern T-90 is not far from the T-34. At the same time, the military decided to abandon further work on the promising tank project "Object-195". The designer of armored vehicles of the only remaining tank-building enterprise Uralvagonzavod Vladimir Nevolin spoke about whether tanks are needed in modern Russia.

Vladimir Mikhailovich, at the recent salon of armaments and military equipment of Eurosatory-2010 in Paris, the tanks were almost the main exhibits. For the first time Israel showed off its newest tank Merkava-Mk4 with the Trophy active protection system abroad. Germany has two projects at once: the modernized Leopard-2A7 + and the concept of a tank of the future, which was designated as the revolutionary MBT Revolution. And what about us? Why do the military have so many complaints about Uralvagonzavod products?

Vladimir Nevolin: I would not like to comment on the words of our military. But if we talk about domestic tanks, I personally see that in Algeria, in India, and in China, and in Pakistan - in countries where the military certainly know their business better than ours - they successfully exploit the tanks created on the basis of our T-72. This is the most massive tank in the world for a long time became a classic, a trendsetter in tank building: a gun with a caliber 125 mm, an automatic loader - carousel type with 22 shots. The same machine went to the tank T-90. It is bought by India and Algeria.

The Chinese at one time took the T-72 for the prototype and created two of their tanks - type-98 and type-99. These tanks have already made 2,5 thousand. Then, the Chinese, together with Pakistan, created an MBT-2000 tank, or Al Khalid, in which the automatic loader with the T-72 was also used.

Main battle tank T-72 Ural

Type 99 / ZTZ99, China

Office-2000, or Al Khalid, China-Pakistan

But for some reason, this automatic loader doesn’t suit our military any more - as if it is easy to hit it with anti-tank weapons. While in Chechnya there were T-72 tanks that withstood 6-9 hits from hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers. The crew remained alive while the tank was combat-ready. I find it difficult to understand the logic of the military.

If the military publicly express their discontent, then it means that they have an accurate idea of ​​what they would like to ideally get?

Nevolin: Unfortunately, all requirements are classified as secret.

But do they at least see some perspective?

Nevolin: Yes.

In that case, why does the Ministry of Defense refuse to further develop the "Object-195" program, which is based on a tank with an uninhabited tower?

195 object

Nevolin: I also have no right to comment.

Then explain how a tank should be to be called modern?

Nevolin: In principle, we believe that the T-90С tank is exactly modern. Not inferior to anything third-generation tanks. First, he has an automated fire control system that has equal opportunities to detect targets both day and night, in difficult weather conditions. It has a thermal sight, in the production of which France is involved. On the T-72 there was no such device. On the T-90C, it is there, which makes the sector for a wider overview of the terrain by tankers (this was not the case before).

Secondly - protection. It must ensure that the tank is unaffected by the main anti-tank weapons: an 120 mm anti-tank armor-piercing projectile and an anti-tank guided missile of all types. These requirements for our tank are also met. Thirdly - the movement over rough terrain at speeds up to 45 km / h and a power reserve of at least 500 km. Our tank goes exactly like that. Finally, the last thing that should be is the equipment of automated battle management: display of the current combat information about the enemy in real time. What is also implemented. That is, the T-90C is in every sense a modern and efficient combat vehicle.

How many years do you think the T-90С will be considered a modern tank? And when will Russia need to present a fundamentally new combat vehicle?


Nevolin: The main complaints about the T-90С tank today are related to its insufficient survivability. Still, the placement in the same circuit of people, ammunition and fuel is fraught with the fact that if the armor is pierced, it can lead to a fire outbreak. Even with a fire extinguishing system, such options are not excluded. Therefore, the development of modern armored vehicles is on the path of separation of people and fuel from ammunition. Still one option - the use of remotely controlled weapons. In the "Object-195" it was practically implemented - the tank tower was without a crew, and it was concentrated in a protected circuit, separated from the fuel and the warhead. In principle, all countries of the world are just about to switch to such remote-controlled combat units, to separate manned and uninhabited compartments in the construction of modern tanks. But I repeat: no one has such machines yet.

and: Your company has already put into practice the "uninhabited tower" on a combat vehicle supporting tanks BMPT. Can it be considered a prototype of the tank of the future?

Nevolin: BMPT has other combat missions. In addition, the crew sits in the same place where the fuel and ammunition. Simply, they are more rationally placed.

How do you see the future of this car?

Nevolin: This is one of the types of combat vehicles that needs to be developed further. Modern BMP badly protected. If you try to protect this machine at the same level as a tank, then it will weigh about seventy tons. Which is clearly very heavy. Although such work is going in Germany. A new combat tracked infantry vehicle, Puma, weighing 40 tons with protection against anti-tank weapons, of which the most used are hand-held grenade launchers, was put into service there. More serious means of destruction - anti-tank guided missiles, missiles - this machine does not stand up.

BMP "Puma" is made according to the classical for infantry fighting scheme

But each country has its own path. For example, the Americans had a program for switching to light equipment - "Future combat system". It was planned to assemble eight combat vehicles and the same number of X-NUMX tonnage support vehicles so that they could be transferred by C-18 transport aircraft. But last year, the Americans also abandoned this program and recently launched a project to create a heavy armored personnel carrier with a crew of three and a group of nine paratroopers.

There is such a German specialist - Rolf Hilmis. According to his concept of the development of BMP, the machine is actually divided into two. One that hosts small-caliber weapons - a gun, a rocket system. The second is engaged in the actual transportation of infantry. Both have a high level of protection. As an example of such a separation, he cites our BMPT: it has small-caliber weapons, is equipped with a perfect fire control system that can detect small targets, and is capable of effectively hitting them, having a large ammunition load.

Why is this important?

Nevolin: Because today every infantryman is well armed with either an RPG or a portable missile system. The Americans in Iraq and in Afghanistan practically every soldier has a pipe behind their backs - this is precisely what anti-tank complexes are capable of hitting any BMP. And on BMPT placed a large ammunition. For example, only gun shots for 30-mm gun - 850 pieces (for comparison on the BMP-2 - 500). In addition, there are two more independent firing channels - two operators armed with AG-17D automatic grenade launchers, each with 300 grenades. Each of them has a defeat zone of seven meters in a square. That is, firing 300 grenades, I hit 2100 square meters. This is one grenade launcher! Two - 4200 square meters dotted with splinters. Even if a grenade doesn’t hit a fighter, the fact weapons will force the enemy to abandon the attempt to attack the car. In addition, to combat high-security targets at BMPT, there are two launchers with four Ataka-T guided anti-tank missiles with cumulative or thermobaric combat units capable of striking both tanks and enemy fortifications at a distance of five kilometers. In the field, one BMPT surpasses two motorized rifle platoons in efficiency - these are six infantry fighting vehicles and about 40 manpower. In cities, forests and mountains, the use of long-range tools is impractical. Therefore, multifunctional vehicles such as BMPT will represent the main strike force of the Ground Forces.

BMPT tank support fighting vehicle based on the T-72 tank

Why, then, do the Ground Forces consider the BMPT to be almost a whim of the Uralvagonzavod?

Nevolin: When this car was created, we gave it a bad name. Then it met the requirement of supporting tanks, but now the BMPT can have an independent combat use. Today we call it an infantry fire support vehicle. It behaves well in cities and in closed areas, for which a tank is too powerful a machine. You can’t download more 30-40 shots to it! And shooting a tank gun at an infantryman is like sparrows. That's when BMPT becomes a kind of sniper weapon.

Why our military do not understand this - I can not judge. BMPT has been tested, but since 2006, it has not been accepted for service.

In the current situation, "Uralvagonzavod" will again survive only at the expense of import contracts?

Nevolin: It seems so.
31 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Paparacia
    April 22 2011 10: 38
    This minister-pipistr Serdyukov and got to this car ....
  2. Escander
    April 22 2011 11: 55
    We talked normally ... What kind of tank the military needs - the secret, why they refuse domestic modern designs - is also a secret.
    In the course, the designer is a little disingenuous that does not say a reason. It’s inconvenient for him about kickbacks ...
  3. figwam
    April 22 2011 12: 07
    Such an aggregate needs active armor, otherwise the infantry will throw grenades at it from RPGs and anti-helicopter air defense systems, NATO has a lot of them.
  4. Stavr
    April 22 2011 12: 26
    The secrets, most likely, are connected with the fact that abroad and we have got real developments of a compact electromagnetic gun. At the same time, its caliber is small, and shooting can even be conducted by plasma, affecting both ground and air targets at a great distance. What will require the installation of radar on tracked vehicles, as laser aiming at the target in this case is no longer relevant: the distances are not the same, the target is already horizontal. Perhaps they also plan to equip new equipment with missiles, including ATGM according to the principle: shot and forgot. In the event that the USA already has such developments, then it is simply useless to produce our equipment, which obviously will not be able to deal with such new enemy armored vehicles.
    1. WADIM
      21 August 2011 09: 54
      It’s very interesting if it’s not a duck .... Could you elaborate on these developments? Any prototypes?
      1. Dmitry.V
        22 December 2011 20: 28
        The last thing I heard about an electromagnetic gun is that it won't be installed on a tank there for 100 tons of equipment, but they are going on ships, only I also think not so soon - from the transmission "science-2.0" ... and we would need more tanks.
        A BMPT too heavy came out of the program "military secret".
        And not yet in the subject but, http: //www.youtube.com/watch? V = 0MwS60NRYAY & feature = g-people & context = G287b247C
        PAAAAAAAIAA stumbled there with a soldier asking about the service, I don’t know, of course the truth is told or not, but I want to believe.
  5. Joker
    April 22 2011 12: 34
    - give railgun to every fighter !!!

    But seriously, developments have been, are and always will be, periodically something new appears that can in a certain way affect the tactics of using troops. But this is not a reason to curtail promising developments and refuse new types of weapons. The reason for abandoning them is much deeper.

    As far as the electromagnetic gun is concerned, development is in progress, of course, but far from practical implementation, since they need a powerful source of energy. In the short term, this is the arming of ships by them.
    1. Dmitry.V
      22 December 2011 20: 28
      "war is the constant engine of progress"
  6. krumkah.igor
    April 22 2011 13: 34
    Most likely the existing contradictions between the military-industrial complex and the Ministry of Defense are contradictions of views on the future of the warrior as such. The military-industrial complex is focused on the production of weapons for a big war, and Mr. Serdyukov and the generals, with rare exceptions, are influenced by American cartoons and TV pictures from regional conflicts, most often staged. The USSR has already become a hostage of competent misinformation, and now is not the time to give officials to step on the same rake. After all, the "bumps" will not be received by them and l / s on the battlefield. With the competent organization of military and object air defense, improving the tactics of using troops in an aerospace operation, there is still no alternative to modern tanks as the main strike force of the ground forces.

    I add, I propose that the GRU of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation more often acquaint the generals and leadership of the Russian Federation with the results of military operations in Libya, especially in terms of the effectiveness of the use of aviation and precision weapons by NATO forces. But this poorly trained, small, devoid of air defense and lacking experience of military operations army is opposed to modern concepts of warfare and means of destruction.
  7. +2
    April 22 2011 13: 36
    1. WADIM
      21 August 2011 10: 00
      they’ll do it, they’ll definitely do it ... when they need it ... and now their tanks and infantry fighting vehicles do it together so well .... and they don’t have to put something into series and organize production .....
  8. inej2
    April 22 2011 17: 20
    Strange, they don’t need their own equipment, but they are ready to buy helicopter barges and kitchens over the hill ...
    1. WADIM
      21 August 2011 10: 06
      A kitchen barge was bought over the hill only because of the command and control system ... Zenit-9, notice one of the best systems in the world! (You don’t really want your armies and navy to buy already outdated technology !? So, just because no one can offer such a system ... they can only build the same iron crutch ..
      And the price is this because the French would have been cheaper just did not want to give it back .... Therefore, bidding with the French was so long, closed and nervous. and agreed 2 build France and 2 we are licensed .... All for the money as they say ...
  9. clean
    April 22 2011 18: 18
    And where does the state security committee look. Thoughts, in my opinion, they should ask our Minister of Defense why he prefers the purchase of foreign weapons, because you can’t ignore your military-industrial complex indefinitely, you can stay without your weapons.
  10. alexandt
    April 22 2011 18: 19
    Our tanks are not afraid of anything, except for Officials from the Russian Ministry of Defense. This is the best anti-tank weapon against Russian tanks.
  11. +2
    April 22 2011 19: 42
    First Deputy Minister of Defense Vladimir Popovkin said that the modern T-90 is not far from the T-34

    HA, where did they find this guy? What is the modern tank then? Megatron from Transformers ?? !!!
  12. JEKA
    April 27 2011 18: 48
    Comrades, stop discussing our officials from Moscow Region !!! They are simply engaged in the destruction of the military-industrial complex and the undermining of the country's defense capabilities! ! ! ! !
  13. Stalin-2
    April 30 2011 17: 41
    It seems to smell of treason!
  14. pokermen
    3 May 2011 17: 34
    "First Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin said that the modern T-90 is not far from the T-34"

    I’m wondering if he has the courage to say the same thing at the UVG or in Tagil .... and how far can he escape after these words ???

  15. Ybw
    9 May 2011 22: 46
    Military tribunal for the destructive activities of Putin V.V.
  16. Owl
    11 May 2011 15: 44
    What anti-tank weapons do you know?
    - Pillars, gouges and dolby .. fuck.
    (Soviet joke heard from a teacher of BM and A in 1987 while studying at OrdzhVOKU
  17. Allergy
    11 May 2011 17: 23
    1. WADIM
      21 August 2011 10: 14
      we don’t fight with China we’ll be tactical weapons .. in that case we will have nothing to lose .... And the NATO bloc itself reduces its arms Germany Great Britain, France, and others ... read it yourself ... Except for the USA !!!! But Amenra is not Europe, they are crushing us with missile defense and Locators and a fleet with missile defense elements of the Aegis system (this is the main danger, they can intercept missiles on ships to our borders). Therefore, our grandmas invest in the construction and modernization of missiles and the construction of submarines ....
  18. Death to the enemies
    Death to the enemies
    14 May 2011 09: 30
    freak-generals together with the government rob and disarm the country. The Great Winning Country will purchase their tanks from Germany. Shame! Corrupt hides under the ass from the west.
  19. Death to the enemies
    Death to the enemies
    14 May 2011 09: 42
    Serdyuk and 2 medveputa are completely fucked up already, a bunch of p .. donors decides whether the country needs weapons or not. We are not protected not from the east or from the west. the Chinese are simply throwing hats at us. Serdyukov is ruining the country, and asshole medveputes are licking the west. The situation in the Russian Federation in the world is not the best, raw materials pump out half the world from the Russian Federation when our people are in poverty. And the government is filling our pockets. People are preparing to capture, as you don’t understand, this is a purposeful collapse of the army and the country. what will happen to our children if we do not rise from our knees now ?!
    1. WADIM
      21 August 2011 10: 16
      so as not to see the end of Russia, I suggest you drown in the toilet ... And we can somehow survive without you .... You are our defeatist ....
  20. 0
    16 May 2011 11: 11
    The T-90S is an export version of the T-90, and it is outdated, UVZ has a new T-90M, with a new tower from Object 187, why don't they say anything about it?
    1. Joker
      26 May 2011 17: 57
      Because when everyone forgets, they will give the object 187 as a new super tank for the development of which a million dollars were spent ...
    25 May 2011 21: 37
    We have been chasing resources over a hill for 20 years and constantly hear the same phrase:
    -the project is closed due to the cessation of financing or the like, but where does such a lot of money go? The standard of living also did not become higher ...
    regarding foreign components, such as a French thermal imager, I think it’s not acceptable for the military sphere (1 we will depend, 2 they will not sell good, 3 degrades their own military complex) not to mention the purchase of equipment. just now a thermal imager, then the control system, moved and eventually the tank. everything is like in a basin (vase)
  22. Arthur
    16 June 2011 13: 31
    You can reduce it, but they can create it in a short time. As they say, breaking does not build a soul does not hurt. It is necessary to carry out such reforms on the basis of the military-political situation, and not cut off the shoulder. Everyone is arming themselves, but we .... let's see how it ends.
    PS Let’s reduce everything, let’s leave one representative for each type of aircraft, it’s easier to contain them
  23. Artemka
    28 November 2011 15: 13
    They are afraid of ATGMs, however tanks have armor and protective devices, and camouflage.