The project of the unified combat department "Burlak"

66
After the collapse of the USSR, the Russian army inherited a large number of different equipment, including three types of main combat tanks, not counting their many modifications. A similar situation prevailing in the seventies complicated the operation of armored vehicles and caused a lot of inconvenience to the military. Some measures were taken, but the situation as a whole remained the same. Only in the middle of the XNUMXs did the Ministry of Defense decide to develop a new project, the purpose of which was to somewhat increase the degree of unification of existing tanks.


Tagil "breakthrough" on the top, burlak - below
kayman4 illustration


According to the results of the implementation of several experimental design works, the military came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create a unified combat unit, which could be installed on all new tanks. In addition, the new combat module could be installed on existing tanks in the army undergoing modernization. Such a project looked extremely interesting and could have a great future. The proposed unified combat compartment allowed equipping all the existing tanks or, at least, a significant proportion of them with a common set of equipment, such as weapons, fire control systems, etc. The result of this was to increase the characteristics of the upgraded equipment, as well as simplify the construction of new tanks and the operation of existing ones in the troops.

In 2005, the Defense Ministry’s Main Armored Directorate announced a competition for the Burlak design and development work. Several enterprises submitted their applications, but the winner in the competition was the Omsk Transport Engineering Design Bureau (KBTM). According to a well-known specialist in the field of armored vehicles, Aleksey Khlopotov, the victory of KBTM had several reasons at once. The choice of specialists was affected by the presence of previous similar projects, the initially underestimated cost of the project, as well as the desire of the military to support an enterprise that was experiencing serious difficulties.

The goal of the Burlak project was to develop a unified fighting compartment for existing and prospective domestic tanks. It was assumed that the new combat compartment with minimal modifications should be installed on the machines of T-72B, T-80BV, T-90 types and even on the newest T-95 tank. In the course of the new project it was planned to solve several problems peculiar to the existing armored vehicles. Among the objectives of the project was improving the automation of the supply of ammunition, increasing the level of protection, as well as the creation of a certain modernization reserve for the future.

The basis of the new fighting compartment was to become a hexagonal tower, on which it was planned to mount various units. For example, it was proposed to install replaceable protection modules on the front sheets of the tower, and on the stern there was an installation unit for the so-called. transport loading container (TZK) for placement of ammunition. On the right side of the tower, a special platform was provided for the installation of a remote-controlled machine-gun turret. Such a layout of the fighting compartment, as expected, allowed to solve most of the existing problems.

To increase the level of defense of the tower in frontal projection, it was proposed to use a modular reservation system. The front sheets of the tower were to be placed vertically and equipped with fixings for protection modules. The use of a modular reservation system was of particular interest. Such an architecture of protection means in theory allows relatively quickly and simply to increase the level of protection of armored vehicles by replacing outdated components with new ones. In addition, the modular system is quite convenient to operate in conditions of armed conflict. The damaged module can be replaced with a whole, after which the machine is again protected from various threats.

It should be noted that this architecture of tower defense is not without flaws. The main ones are related to the relative complexity of manufacturing and the increased mass of the structure. Due to fastenings, etc. parts modular armor is noticeably heavier and more expensive than similar protection integrated into the tower structure. Nevertheless, the authors of the Burlak project decided to build the defense of the new combat unit by using the modular design with interchangeable elements.






The available diagrams and photographs depict frontal booking modules of various designs that differ even in appearance. So, on some schemes there are wedge-shaped modules, on others (in particular, on photos published a few years ago) - inclined blocks of characteristic shape, fixed at the bottom of the tower. Probably at different stages of development offered different options for modular frontal booking. According to different sources, the front of the tower had to carry both a combined reservation and dynamic protection units.

An important innovation of the project "Burlak" was a new automatic loader with ammunition rendered outside the habitable volume. At the stern of the tower, mounts were provided for a removable transport and loading container that served as a mechanized stacking of ammunition. Inside the refueling complex it was proposed to place the packing with the automatic feed of shells. Dimensions of the developed container allowed to place in it up to 32 shells of caliber 125 mm. At the command of the crew, the automatics had to bring the projectile of the desired type to the window connecting the fighting compartment with the container. After that, the gun was supposed to go on the line of unloading and a special pusher could charge it. As planned by the authors of the project, such an automatic loader should have a lot of advantages over similar units of existing tanks.

The first advantage was associated with the removal of ammunition (both completely and most of it) beyond the limits of habitable volume, which allowed reducing the risks for the crew. In the event of the defeat of the refueling complex, the detonation of the ammunition should not lead to the death of the crew, since the burning or explosions occur outside the tower. In addition, as a means of improving crew safety, dynamic protection modules installed on the refueling complex can be used, as well as expelling panels on the upper surface of the container.

The removal of ammunition beyond the limits of manned volume also allows you to increase the size of the crew compartment, designed to accommodate the crew and various equipment. According to some reports, the rejection of the "classic" automatic loader in favor of the refueling complex should have led to savings around 2,5 cube. m space. In addition, simplified loading ammunition. It was possible to remove the refueling complex with used ammunition and install a new one. Such a feature could significantly speed up the preparation of the tank for the combat mission, but it had a negative effect on the cost of the whole complex of facilities, modernization and operation of armored vehicles.

It is known that in the combat department "Burlak" two automatic loaders were provided at once. One proposed to be placed in a removable refueling complex, the second - at the bottom of the case. The lower automatic carousel loader allowed to increase the total tank ammunition, and also gave some other advantages. In particular, he allowed to continue the fight in case of damage, destruction or use up of ammunition located in the container.

A curious feature of the Burlak fighting compartment with original blocks of frontal protection and a transport-loading container was the balancing of the aggregates. The use of two large nodes located on the front and aft parts of the tower, allowed them to balance. In other words, the refueling complex allowed to strengthen the protection, and the frontal armor made it possible to use the container for ammunition. Naturally, all this led to a noticeable increase in the mass of the tower and the load on the epaulet.

An important innovation of the ROC Burlak was a remote-controlled machine-gun installation, placed on a special platform outside the tower. Modern tanks need machine guns equipped with a remote control system, so the appearance of such a unit on a promising turret was logical and expected. The removal of the machine gun on the side platform made it possible to optimize to a certain extent the placement of the units on the upper surface of the tower, in particular the hatches of the crew. An interesting fact is that the onboard platform of the machine gun did not stand for the projection of the frontal defense units.



In general, the list of the main advantages of the Burlak combat unit looked as follows:
- an increased level of protection due to the use of a combination of armor and dynamic protection;
- the possibility of a relatively simple repair and modernization of protection due to the change of individual units or the whole set of them;
- placing the entire ammunition in automated laying under the floor of the fighting compartment and in the transport-loading container;
- reduction of risks for the crew through the use of a separate refueling complex;
- the possibility of increasing the ammunition through the use of two stowages (a variant of the refueling complex with a capacity of 32 projectile was developed);
- compatibility with modern and promising tools and fire control systems;
- the ability to attack manpower and unprotected vehicles using a remote-controlled machine gun turret.

It is known about the existence of a prototype of an updated tank, built on the basis of the serial T-72B. This car was equipped with a model of a promising combat compartment. The exact time of the appearance of such a tank is unknown. It was probably collected in the second half of the past decade. Photos of an experimental car with a tower covered with a tarpaulin were freely available only in 2011, when, as far as is known, all work on the topic of Burlak was discontinued. These photos show some features of the proposed combat compartment, although the fabric does not allow to get acquainted in detail even with the appearance of the resulting machine.

In addition to a number of noticeable advantages, tanks with the Burlak combat compartment should have some drawbacks. First of all, it is a relative difficulty with the development of new technology. Modernized tanks with a new combat compartment for some time had to be operated in parallel with the existing types of equipment. Thus, there was a risk of complicating an already not too simple situation with the simultaneous operation of several types of tanks. Thus, in addition to the T-72B, T-80BB and T-90 tanks, similar vehicles with new turrets were to appear in the troops. In other words, the troops were threatened with a true doubling of the number of types of equipment used. A similar situation could persist until the full transition to new combat modules.

It should also be noted that the Burlak combat compartment was too heavy due to a number of new units. The latest modification of the T-90 tank, the T-90MS, equipped with the Breakthrough turret of the classic layout, has a combat weight of 48-49 tons. Thus, the T-90MS fits into the military requirements for the weight of new armored vehicles associated with the capabilities of the military transport aviation. Preliminary calculations showed that the T-90 chassis with the Burlak tower would weigh at least 49,5 tons. Further development of the fighting compartment threatened to increase the weight of the entire tank with corresponding consequences for mobility.

Work on the topic "Burlak" continued until the end of 2009 year. For some reason, the project was closed. Probably, the specialists of GABTU analyzed its current state and came to the conclusion that it was useless to continue the development. It was decided to abandon the project of gradual modernization of the existing fleet of tanks, focusing on the creation of new combat units for promising main tanks.

Approximately at the same time as the Burlak project was closed, specialists from the Uralvagonzavod Corporation began the development of the promising unified tracked platform Armata. As part of this project, it was planned to create a line of different vehicles, primarily a new main tank, which in the foreseeable future should replace the existing vehicles. Whether any developments on the topic of Burlak were used in the development of the Armata tank is unknown.


On the materials of the sites:
http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/
http://btvt.narod.ru/
http://otvaga2004.ru/
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/
http://vpk-news.ru/
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    April 23 2015 06: 16
    We look forward to the parade. So I want to see the news.
    1. +7
      April 23 2015 06: 28
      so already shown everything :) there were small details under the tarp :)
      1. +6
        April 23 2015 07: 05
        Quote: ruslan
        so already shown everything :) there were small details under the tarp :)

        You tell me please, you personally will be surprised if after removing the tarpaulin, say with T 14, a log imitating a 125mm gun will be removed and replaced with beauty with an unspeakable 152mm gun with which the tank will go to the parade and to the series?
        1. +7
          April 23 2015 08: 21
          Quote: Stalker
          You will personally be surprised

          Surprising but nice. There was hope for an 140-mm gun, but so far it has not grown together ...
          1. +5
            April 23 2015 08: 33
            Quote: inkass_98
            Surprising but nice. There was hope for an 140-mm gun, but so far it has not grown together ...

            and in T 15, a long 57mm arm?
            it is also there.
            1. +4
              April 23 2015 10: 03
              Quote: Stalker
              and in T 15, a long 57mm arm?
              it is also there.

              It would also be very good)
        2. +3
          April 23 2015 10: 02
          Quote: Stalker
          You tell me please, you personally will be surprised if after removing the tarpaulin, say with T 14, a log imitating a 125mm gun will be removed and replaced with beauty with an unspeakable 152mm gun with which the tank will go to the parade and to the series?

          I am very surprised and even pleasantly shocking)) I would really like that to be so smile
        3. +10
          April 23 2015 10: 29
          And why 152mm! Why unnecessary problems ... 125mm copes with most tasks ... (again global unification ... and for what !!)
          1. +8
            April 23 2015 14: 12
            "for what purpose" is there anyway!
            The 152 mm caliber improves the ability to break through the armor due to the fact that the projectile is less prone to ricochet and this depreciates the protection of most Western tanks, this is especially evident in the example of chieftain, 2
            there is also a resource for increasing the power of a high-explosive projectile and cumulative.
            The 152mm caliber has the potential to improve firing accuracy over long distances, as well as to increase the barrel’s service life.
            I can’t say that 152 mm is better than 125 mm, but this caliber definitely has its advantages. It seems to me that here the dispute is similar to choosing the caliber of a cartridge for assault rifles
            1. +2
              April 25 2015 17: 28
              Chelyabinsk citizens.
              ".... the object" 785th "also had a complex of active protection" Drozd "with 18 launchers firing protective ammunition. The main armament was a powerful 130mm rifled gun with 50 rounds of ammunition. This is the largest stock of rounds among the Soviet tanks of the second generation. 30 shots were in the automatic loader. Let me remind you that in the AZ T-72 there were 22, and in the MZ T-64 and T-80 - 28 pieces. As an additional weapon on the "785" was used remotely - guided anti-aircraft gun of a closed type, of its own original design .... "

              Why am I? We had a cannon for the tank and 130mm caliber - a bit, but in more than 125mm.
            2. 0
              April 27 2015 21: 35
              The biggest minus is the size and weight of the projectile and charge. With the same tank size, the ammunition will be small.
              1. +1
                April 27 2015 21: 48
                Quote: PRV-16
                The biggest minus is the size and weight of the projectile and charge. With the same tank size, the ammunition will be small.

                You read the above again.

                Object 785 with a larger caliber (130 against 125) had a larger set of shells both in the machine gun conveyor (30 against 22 for the T-72) and the entire ammunition set (50 against 45 against the T-72b)
        4. +5
          April 23 2015 11: 37
          no, not a surprise. it will puzzle. what for? that is the question that arises. 125 mm is quite normal caliber. it would be an assault gun, then yes 152 mm is the most. but for a tank this is overkill until a really effective protection against 125 mm appears.
        5. +4
          April 23 2015 12: 02
          Quote: Stalker
          You tell me please, you personally will be surprised if after removing the tarpaulin, say with T 14, a log imitating a 125mm gun will be removed and replaced with beauty with an unspeakable 152mm gun with which the tank will go to the parade and to the series?

          For me it's better to put a 130mm gun. The main marine caliber. Shells for 130mm guns are unitary. The Shore complex, having 130mm guns when firing at a distance of 20km, swept the old large ship (decommissioned) in less than 10 minutes. The tank does not need such distances, so the gun can be made shorter. Finish still sub-caliber and cumulative shells and more than one tank of the NATO countries will not be able to withstand even the armor-piercing shell of this gun.
          1. +7
            April 23 2015 18: 22
            Quote: PROXOR
            For me it’s better to put an 130mm gun. The main marine caliber.

            sea
            -significantly more expensive (specifics of a corrosive environment)
            - heavier, both the guns themselves and the ammunition (logistics)
            -More sophisticated fire control devices and gun guidance mechanisms.
            -limited trunk survivability ..
            well and so on
        6. +8
          April 23 2015 15: 40
          Quote: Stalker
          will be removed, and replaced by the beauty of an unspeakable gun 152mm with which the tank will go to the parade and to the series?

          Is there a gun?
          In stock?
          327 object

          - 1988 - work on the topic and tests at the Uraltransmash test site were completely stopped.

          With 1988 year one remaining copy stood without motion xnumx years at the test site of the Uraltransmash test site, after which in the spring of the 2004 of the year it was installed in a museum on its territory, where is currently

          -------------------------------------
          -------------------
          Nothing else "brain" comes.

          2А36М "Dilemma-2А36", produced by 1987 ...
        7. +6
          April 23 2015 20: 20
          It will surprise me personally when the tarpaulin is removed, and there - voila, the 450 kilowatt laser gun! fellow
          1. +6
            April 23 2015 20: 28
            Quote: boozer
            450 kilowatt laser gun!

            yeah ...
            Where else to place the generator on 500KW?




            Will he go behind?

            Well, are the same superconders on 500 kW?
            Oh yes . another cooling system for LU, taking into account the efficiency in 20%, power 2 MEGA WATER


            because 450 kW went into the enemy with us, and 1800 kW remained in the closet

            So for reference:
            A rather big bandura (LU cooling system), weighs 120 kg. The system can just serve to cool industrial lasers, removes power as much as whole 6 kW. And she consumes electricity as much.
            APPROPRIATELY, ONE MORE ONE IS NEEDED:

            And try with all this crap to move around the battlefield ...
            1. Kir
              +1
              April 24 2015 15: 00
              Well, why do you immediately pretend that, after all, according to some, the future, as well as honest artillery as such, still does not see a full-fledged replacement for honest artillery as such.
              1. +1
                April 25 2015 01: 55
                Quote: Kir
                Well, why do you immediately pose for it, because for L.A.Z.e.

                Well, certainly not on the MBT "future", in any case
                Quote: Kir
                as well as honest artillery as such, there is still no sooner a full-fledged replacement.

                The rocket confidently crowds out ...
                Although manual, gunshot ... I think on Alpha Centauri, when our space marines will land there, with gunshots, how to give
                1. Kir
                  0
                  April 25 2015 23: 40
                  I honestly just did not write about the missile (especially considering how the gun of the current tanks can work), the only question is how can a weapon that is not able to affect an object behind an obstacle push a weapon that can?
          2. +1
            April 25 2015 13: 36
            It will surprise me personally when the tarpaulin is removed, and there - voila, 10mm plywood!
      2. +6
        April 23 2015 15: 33
        Quote: ruslan
        so already shown everything :) there were small details under the tarp :)

        It's like showing a muzzle in your pocket!
    2. 0
      April 25 2015 13: 35
      High resolution photos of the newest combat platform "Boomerang from the rehearsal of the Victory Parade in Alabino: http://mother-russia.org/blog/photoset/1440.html
  2. +6
    April 23 2015 08: 41
    but I really like this Burlak, there is something in it. and probably similar will be on the armature.
    1. +2
      April 23 2015 09: 50
      Armata will have only a gun and sights with a machine gun.
      1. +1
        April 23 2015 14: 16
        more antennas will stick out smile
      2. +2
        April 23 2015 19: 20
        Quote: Vadim237
        Armata will have only a gun and sights with a machine gun


        ?
        it can be seen (no box around the plywood from around the empty space will be fenced, and even cover the same with an awning):

        1.Automatic loading
        2 ammunition
        3. Body kit lethal (ZU machine gun)
        4. Radar (100%), something "castrated" from the T-50

        5.OES and IR system
        6.DZ and AZ
        Generally.....
        something like this:




        But not like that:

  3. +2
    April 23 2015 09: 04
    Such a feature could significantly accelerate the preparation of the tank for the combat mission, however, it negatively affected the cost of the entire complex of means, the modernization and operation of armored vehicles.

    It should also be noted that the combat department "Burlak" because of a number of new units turned out too heavy. The latest modification of the T-90 tank, the T-90MS, equipped with the “Breakthrough” tower of the classic layout, has a combat weight of 48-49 tons. Thus, T-90MS fits into the demands of the military for the weight of new armored vehicles associated with the capabilities of military transport aircraft. Preliminary calculations showed that the T-90 chassis with the Burlak turret would weigh at least 49,5 tons. Further development of the fighting compartment threatened to increase the weight of the entire tank, with corresponding consequences for mobility.

    It is a pity that the project was closed, as always saving on crew health and for the sake of the mythical transfer of tank units with the help of transport aircraft ...
    The development was really sensible ... If you yourself weren’t directly needed, you could leave it at least as an export option.
    Although a T-72 equipped with a hull would have been preferable to the T-72B3 in combat terms, although, admittedly, it would have lost to him in purely combat performance ...
    1. +7
      April 23 2015 10: 41
      or maybe they just started (a little) counting money ... such "modernizations" would immediately add a bunch of problems, SO HOT FOR YOUR FAVORITE LAN (try, for example, load ammunition, you can't do without a crane, so every platoon has a crane ...!? replacement of all lifting machines ...!? and so in everything really did not have enough old problems ... replacement of the caliber, but what to do with all the zipa shells ... (but we can say that we are thicker ...)
      1. +3
        April 23 2015 11: 15
        Quote: oldkap22
        for example, try to load ammunition, you can’t do without a crane, which means that in each platoon, on a crane ...!?

        Well. you really do not consider designers. Surely, the option of manual loading of BC was provided.
        Quote: oldkap22
        replacement caliber-and where to put all the shells zip
        I do not quite understand what kind of caliber replacement you are talking about. Burlak was made at 125 mm.
        Do not confuse with work on the uninhabited tower of a promising tank.
        1. +3
          April 23 2015 20: 10
          I'm talking about the previous-130 140 and 152 mm ideas "even if there is an" emergency "loading of the BK-manual, but the main one will still require" mechanization "(and even 2 automatic loaders ... In the Air Force, designers are also not fools and bombs are still loaded with crowbars ...
          1. +1
            April 24 2015 08: 59
            Quote: oldkap22
            I'm talking about the previous-130 140 and 152 mm ideas "even if there is an" emergency "loading of the BK-manual, but the main one will still require" mechanization "(and even 2 automatic loaders ... In the Air Force, designers are also not fools and bombs are still loaded with crowbars ...

            What does this have to do with "Burlak", which had as its goal the modernization of a standard tank with a standard 125 mm gun for the purpose of partial or complete (depending on the situation) removal of the ammunition load outside the fighting compartment?
            1. 0
              April 24 2015 11: 01
              I mean, our designers are certainly smart. But their fantasies must be put on solid ground and the theory must be confirmed by practice (it's not bad to use an accountant (sometimes)) many ideas, which are not bad in theory, go sideways during operation and blood in war .. . (disputes on t-34. ambiguous t-64. (for fans of import-T-6 (Tiger) ...) and our love to solve all "bottlenecks" due to the "super-efforts" of drugs
          2. 0
            April 25 2015 17: 35
            Quote: oldkap22
            In the Air Force, designers are also not stupid, and bombs are still loaded with crowbars ...

            On the Ka-50 helicopter, winches for loading the ammunition are included in the helicopter kit.
      2. +2
        April 23 2015 20: 06
        Quote: oldkap22
        (For example, try to load ammunition, you can’t do without a crane, so each crane has a crane ...!?

        ?
        And how is the loading of the ammunition connected with the Burlak combat compartment?



        WHAT CHANGED THAT?

        Quote: oldkap22
        SO HOT TO FAVORITE BOS


        it was, is and will be, until the ZhMV is adopted, then the tanker, but the shot is still "handles" ...


        which crane?




        1. 0
          April 24 2015 11: 05
          in "Burlak" the idea sounded to change the ENTIRE turret box (together with AZ) when loading the BC (approximately like an AK store) ....
          1. 0
            April 24 2015 12: 03
            Quote: oldkap22
            in "Burlak" the idea sounded to change the ENTIRE tower box (together with AZ

            This is 2 BC
            1 EVERYTHING IS EQUAL THERE
            - In the conveyor AZ of the T-72B / T-90 tank only 22 postedand the rest xnumx shot ...
            - The proposed modernization option solves the problem of increasing the combat effectiveness of the T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks to the level of modern requirements by installing a crazy AZ. In the tank tower with a fighting compartment is placed second automatic loader, equipped with a carousel-type conveyor (similar to the AZ of the T-72 tank) with shell cartridges, located at the bottom of the tank body.
            -Thus, in the upgraded tank, the entire ammunition of the tank is automated, and when a loaded AZ (TZK) is damaged, the tank is able to continue the battle using the AZ located at the bottom of the hull.
            -in the framework of creating a single fighting compartment with dual-threaded automatic loader mechanism with full automation of the ammunition located in the tank (36 shots and more). TZK (transport-loading container) of various capacities were developed - 14 ... 32 shots.


            --------------------------------
            Manual "loading" remains, therefore
            Quote: oldkap22
            (For example, try to load ammunition, you can’t do without a crane, so in each platoon on the crane ...!? field repair-replacement of all hoisting machines ...!?
            NOT RELEVANT
            -----------------------
        2. +1
          April 25 2015 18: 39
          By the way, the ammunition loading in the T-62 tank is carried out with gross violations of TB rules: the ammunition is delivered to the tower with the projectile down, because if it is dropped (God forbid!), The shell will not explode, as it still has a bunch of locks (3 -and or 4th), but if you hook the capsule of the sleeve, the gunpowder will ignite immediately, and its energy (with the hatches closed) is enough to tear the tower off the pagon.

          The second:
          it would be smart to load the ammunition into the tank not through the top hatch, but by delivering a projectile through a small hatch in the aft sheet of the tank, as was done on some of our self-propelled guns. And the layout of the ammunition in the conveyor should be done by automation itself, without human intervention.
        3. 0
          April 25 2015 22: 16
          anyone can move from a tank with a thermal imager, but he’s ready to hit a bozo in
          movement from our tank?
    2. +8
      April 23 2015 11: 03
      Quote: tchoni
      It is a pity that the project was closed, as always saving on crew health and for the sake of the mythical transfer of tank units with the help of transport aircraft ...

      all, this modernization would make sense, only if unitary erase....

      in 2001, at the exhibition in Omsk, T-55М6 was presented in the aft of the tower, an automatic loader on the 22 shot. and, this modernization did not go into series ...

      automatic loader of the Omsk Federal State Unitary Enterprise KB "Transmash"

      info from: http: //alternathistory.org.ua/kak-v-omske-pytalis-skrestit-t-55-st-72-it-80
      1. +1
        April 23 2015 11: 17
        Quote: cosmos111
        all, this modernization would have made sense, only with a unitary wipe ....

        Why do you think so?
      2. +4
        April 23 2015 13: 18
        For the T-55, this is too complex a modification. Too old a car for someone to invest serious money in its modernization.
        Although if all this is released as "whales" that the customer himself can hang on the original tank - maybe there will be buyers ...
        1. +2
          April 23 2015 13: 51
          Quote: tchoni
          Why do you think so?

          Quote: tchoni
          For the T-55, this is too complex a modification.

          T-55, I agree, a complex modification, the T-62 with the 115 mm gun would be the ideal condate for modernization ...

          separate-shell loading, for MBT is a dead end ((BOPS length)))
          for self-propelled guns, with a variable shot ((depending on the distance to the target))) - this is progress ....
          1. +3
            April 23 2015 14: 57
            I don’t understand your logic about the separate case-loading. That is, you think that the "PENCIL" 1500-1800mm long, in a closed, very limited volume (in a tank) is easier to "turn" than two cylinders half as long? in modern conditions, at least trampling on the ground, as a maximum regression in the design of tank guns, loading mechanism in particular, since the presence of a full-fledged SAM (L-2000; 2500mm) in the MBT MBT is an urgent need that has all the prerequisites for implementation (as an example). "Burlake" in essence is a question of where the main part of the BC is located - in the tower or in the case. Similar disputes on this site have happened more than once. In my opinion, the tower placement has no prospects, because all the dubious advantages are covered by obvious disadvantages .And the design of a two-element MZ with a transport-equipment module cannot provide the required level of reliability. Yes, and requires the reformation of the structures of all tank forces (the formation of subunits providing TIME x modules).
            1. +4
              April 23 2015 16: 37
              Quote: Argon
              That is, you think that the "PENCIL" 1500-1800mm long, in a closed, very limited volume (in a tank) is easier to "turn" than two cylinders half as long?
              no .. you are not quite right. in the case of BOPS, the shot length is almost equal to the length of the "scrap", and they all grow in length and grow as the requirements for armor penetration increase. And separate charging does not always help here. And the use of a unitary shot in the AZ can raise the rate of fire. Well, and to some extent the resistance to detonation increases. In general, this question is controversial and not entirely unambiguous.
              Quote: Argon
              And the design of a two-element MZ with a transport-equipped module cannot provide the required level of reliability
              I will have food for thought for you: take a closer look at the photos of Almaty .... It feels like she has such a module under a tarp .....
            2. +2
              April 23 2015 16: 52
              Quote: Argon
              I did not understand your logic about the separate case-loading.


              disputes sea and not only, on our website, which is more promising, on MBT, separately sleeve, or unitary shot "???
              mine: purely private opinion: for a MBT, a unitary shot is more promising ...
              all modern BOPSs tend to increase in length ... "MANgo" the entire length of the "projectile", but AZ are forced to divide the projectile into 2 parts, and the amers have it in one piece, respectively, their "crowbar" is longer ...


              2: tactics of using MBT ... BC T-72 :: 50% - OFS, 35% - BPS, 15% - CS, including ATGM ...
              1. +3
                April 23 2015 18: 44
                Dear cosmos111, agree that the same "Mango" is far from a novelty, if not yesterday (only the appearance of the next self-propelled bunker "Merkava4" allows you to say so, but there are also Hans, also working on the "leopard"). I understand that you are "tightly in the subject", you must know about the promising "Rheinmetal" BOPS with a composite core (6-8 "steps"). Hans claim that this is the only "cure" against the "Relic" (they are not far from the truth), but if the core of the BOPS is composite, why not make the projectile itself "prefabricated" - store it in parts (most efficiently using the reserve volume) and assemble it immediately before the shot, forming a "cartridge" in a special niche (by the way, tchoni it feels like a transport-loading module), the most distant from the "warehouse". The compound charge in this case allows you to adjust the power of the shot depending on the requirements of penetration. PS is the length of the chance scrap according to GOST = 1350 mm + -10mm.
                1. +1
                  April 24 2015 13: 50
                  Quote: Argon
                  store it in parts (most efficiently using the reserve volume) and collect it immediately before the shot, forming a "cartridge" in a special niche

                  somehow zelo is difficult, although, of course, everything is possible in the sublunary world ...
                  1. +1
                    April 26 2015 00: 58
                    Yes, as they say, pushed me with Espumezanu, however, you must agree that the Kharkov automatic loader, in the mid-50s, caused a much more violent and far from unambiguous reaction (for those who were supposed to be aware, of course).
        2. +2
          April 23 2015 21: 23
          Quote: tchoni
          For the T-55, this is too complex a modification

          On the one hand, investing in obsolete equipment is not entirely rational; on the other hand, 3 people even in the initial version of the T-55 have greater combat potential than they are in the open field ...
    3. +3
      April 23 2015 17: 09
      I think there are 2 types of tanks in demand - those that are constantly involved in something and those that are 99% of the time in reserve. it would be logical to produce 2 maximally unified modifications for different tasks
  4. +8
    April 23 2015 10: 04
    That will be fun if the tarp is not removed at all! wassat
  5. +9
    April 23 2015 11: 39
    A good and solid fighting compartment that Burlak has and Breakthrough.
    Yes
    The downside is a headache with maintenance. Zampotechs would have hanged themselves precisely, and in unison.
    Well, the price ...
    So this is a fairy tale, unfortunately.
    wink

    The GABTU will not bother with the global modernization of the T-72 with tangible expenses for debugging and grinding of Almaty, it will not ...
    Just would have brought to mind the T-72Б3’s modernization, that’s all ... and would have served them calmly until the mass supply of new equipment.
    Not so expensive to stick additionally:
    - A new complex to the commander, at least as on the T-90.
    - remote machine gun installation for the commander, at least as on the T-80.
    - all-round protection of the car, at least as on the version of the city tank.
    - 1000 mares and the modernization of the transmission and chassis, at least like the T-72BA.
    And FSE, you can serve on such a machine and "work" if necessary.

    Nothing complicated and expensive will be to equip the T-72B3 with such equipment - the loped has long been invented.
    Good luck to the current Mazuta.
    drinks
    1. 0
      April 23 2015 17: 15
      and what is the maintenance issue? turret tanks change every day, or what?
      It seems to me that one could easily find some kind of unification by solving a number of nodes.
      1. +1
        April 23 2015 19: 26
        Armata is a PLATFORM, not a tower!
  6. +1
    April 23 2015 11: 45
    The main problem of the "dense layout" of Soviet / Russian tanks is the placement of ammunition, fuel in the BO and, accordingly, low survivability upon penetration.
    Burlak - was a good step towards solving this problem. The tower on the T-90MS - too.
    In my opinion, if technically feasible, it would be ideal to place only BOPS in a traditional AZ in a BO, other shells in a TZM like Burlak, and in the TZM there would be a placement of propelling charges for the entire ammunition.
    When separating the tanks in the BO with armored partitions, the problems caused by the tight layout would be almost completely solved.
    The only thing that would remain in the flammable BW is the liquid from the hydraulic drive of the vertical aiming.
    If it was replaced by electrical issues of survivability of the T-72/90 tanks, it would be solved almost completely.
    1. Elk
      Elk
      0
      April 23 2015 18: 17
      fluid from a vertical hydraulic actuator.

      A long time ago non-combustible liquids exist. Moreover, in some cases they have wider operating ranges than oil.
    2. 0
      April 25 2015 18: 56
      Quote: cdrt
      When separating tanks in the BO with armored partitions, the problems caused by the tight layout would be almost completely solved .....


      In the fighting compartment, the greatest danger is not the tanks, but the additional charges, which are spread out without getting into.
  7. +2
    April 23 2015 14: 25
    The soul rejoices in such articles! Continue, Cyril in the same vein, publication. And let the developers read your article and our comments. Sometimes amateurs offer sensible solutions and comments.
  8. 0
    April 23 2015 15: 32
    Quote: Ronin62
    That will be fun if the tarp is not removed at all! wassat

    this is not Hochma - they won’t remove him ...
  9. veteran2007
    +3
    April 23 2015 15: 45
    The publication is really interesting. I want to make a few clarifications.
    1. The purpose of Burlak was not only unification, but also an increase in firepower due to a new possible shell.
    2. The proposed design of the modular armor of the tower significantly worsened the conditions for leaving the tank by the driver.
    3. The modular design of the tower defense dramatically increased the moment of inertia of the tower and the existing stabilizer was not able to ensure firing accuracy on the move.
    4. In my opinion, when installed in existing tanks, the barge hauler required considerable modifications of the hulls, which caused reasonable resistance from the developers of the tanks.
    5. No chassis could carry such a heavy tower.
  10. 0
    April 23 2015 15: 47
    In my opinion, the requirements for the mass of tanks are not very correct. A 45 ton machine is certainly faster and more mobile than a 60-70 ton monster. But security is also higher. Yes, and there is experience in the use of such weapons. True, in a desert, not swamps - forests, but somehow this problem can be solved. A sort of tank special forces with a 152 mm cannon and high protection. Wunderwolf, say? It is easy to get around and "sneak up from behind", for such a case there is a bmpt. Well I do not know. Chaftens and merkavas weigh a lot, and are in demand and respect.
    1. 0
      April 23 2015 17: 43
      security grows not so much from the mass as from the layout.
      to raise cardinal protection, you need to make mouse-like monsters
    2. 0
      April 23 2015 20: 30
      not the scale, the territory is smaller than any of our regions, the developed infrastructure (roads. bridges ...) well, the quantity also matters ... tank protection is not only armor but also maneuver. team manageability ...
  11. 0
    April 23 2015 17: 31
    the mass of the car is mainly related to the passability of bridges and some segments of roads, secondary requirements for mass in terms of dimensions and mass for loading on an airplane / ship / trailer / spaceship.
    there is still an inevitable negative relationship between the reliability of the machine and its mass growth.
    The rest - at least a 200-ton tank would have been effective.
    Terrain requirements limit the tank to 45-50 tons, and about 50 tons is a requirement for transporting equipment not to be too expensive.
    I have a question - if some of the modules of the tank are defense, weapons, and so on. removable, how much is it possible to remove them for movement in problem areas? In defense, the tank does not need to force anything in full readiness, so this can be done. In an attack, the tank should move in maximum readiness, and even in difficult conditions, and therefore its dismantling is doubtful.
    It’s just not good to demand everything from one design at once - and combat power, and ease of logistics, and price, etc. But it seems to me that now, after the abolition of the steel wave strategy to the western coast of France, it would be logical to abandon the extremely attacking use of the tank and reduce the requirements for its use and mobility. Under these conditions, the weighted structure of 55-60 tons is quite capable of satisfying the command, because when moving, it can be disassembled and used in problem situations.
    1. 0
      April 24 2015 11: 35
      for each front-line operation, "build" your tanks from "LEGO sets"? (a specialized tool is more effective than a universal one. but MORE EXPENSIVE (much more expensive ...)
  12. veteran2007
    +1
    April 24 2015 07: 58
    I will express the seditious thought that I expressed in 95 - every war needs its own tank. The assault on Berlin did not require a tank with a fuel range of 500 km. The Abrams would not have passed the Manerheim line. "Merkava" will not pass our forest "column paths". Instead of producing three brands of practically identical tanks, we had to create a "tank for the city", "a tank for the desert" and "a tank for Europe." All attempts to propose this kind of "de-unification" did not find support among the high command. This was only partially realized when creating the BMPT concept.
    1. 0
      April 24 2015 11: 40
      this idea does not find support not only from the "High Command" but also from everyone who REALLY deals with this issue (for example, zampotekhi ...) (well, financiers (not regimental))
  13. 0
    April 24 2015 14: 53
    Quote: opus
    the stern provided for the installation unit of the so-called transport and loading container (TZK) for the deployment of ammunition
    1. 0
      April 24 2015 20: 03
      Claims "I take off the crane for each platoon" ... loading the tzk is only manual (I misunderstood the idea (and ran ahead of the locomotive ...)
  14. 0
    April 24 2015 16: 32
    The machine gun is very poorly placed - it turns out that in fact less than half of the circular sector of the affected area.
  15. 0
    April 24 2015 17: 17
    only in the middle of the two thousandth years
    article from the future?
  16. 0
    April 24 2015 21: 58
    An interesting article, it’s a pity that only the t-72s are being modernized, it’s time to upgrade the first t-90s already and it would be nice if the t-80s weren’t written off and upgraded with the same hull or brought Bars’s mind to t-80 level.
    1. +1
      April 25 2015 19: 07
      Quote: Victor Wolz
      An interesting article, it’s a pity that only the t-72s are being modernized, it’s time to upgrade the first t-90s already and it would be nice if the t-80s weren’t written off and upgraded with the same hull or brought Bars’s mind to t-80 level.

      In my opinion, there is a new tank (T-14) and it is necessary to drive it into the troops. Let him be ruined there, figuring out childhood diseases. And the more he will be in the army, the faster the process of his refinement will end. By the way, the larger the batch, the cheaper it is to manufacture (for a large batch, you can also buy a special robotic conveyor, a small batch will be made on old equipment with manual labor)
      1. +3
        April 26 2015 22: 47
        I agree, but you shouldn’t leave the old equipment as well ... it’s a good idea to equip the entire line of 72 80 90 with one new turret with a new 125 mm gun and they will serve adequately while the new tank will be treated for these very childhood diseases ...
  17. 0
    April 29 2015 19: 24
    The idea of ​​a single platform is good in that its repair is unified, which, as the war in Ukraine shows, is becoming the most important support for the battle. The slightest breakdown, even a large-caliber bullet hitting the track can "strip" the tank, and as we know, the design of tracks 64, 72, 80 and 90 is different, and the suspension is also different, which means a huge amount of spare parts and special tools. The provision of repair and the supply of ammunition is becoming decisive in the survivability of units and unification, blockiness, the transition to a single standard is of course a step forward. And warheads and towers can be changed. This will also facilitate the transition to robotization of military equipment. So our fellows. Keep it up TAGIL !!! The transition to a single caliber will greatly increase the efficiency of the RAV service and the speed of ammunition delivery. And the range and other combat characteristics can be regulated by the power of ammunition with one caliber. In VAA them. Kalinin, these issues were worked out back in the 80s.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"