Military Review

For those who are in the tank: on the evolution of the approach to the protection of Russian tanks

55



The armed conflicts in Ukraine and Syria, which are taking place with the active participation of Russian military equipment, amid the ongoing process of rearmament of the Russian army, have sharply increased interest in the characteristics of domestic military vehicles, including tanks. Disputes over the survivability of Soviet main battle tanks, from T-64 to T-90 inclusive, however, have been going on for too long to begin the next round of such a discussion. A more interesting subject for discussion is the evolution of the approach to this problem and the practical solution in the form of changes in the design of modernized and new tanks created in Russia.

"Long Arm"

The key disadvantage of domestic main battle tanks developed by 60 – 70 of the last century is the low survival rate of the crew in the event of armor penetration - the tank’s tight layout does not allow the crew, ammunition and fuel to be separated far enough to eliminate fatal consequences if they hit the reserved volume of the vehicle. Anyway, this drawback will have to be taken into account for a long time - the upgraded T-72 will remain in service at least until 2030-s, T-90, repeating the layout solutions of the base machine - and up to 2050-x.

By increasing the security of the machine (and it continues by improving the dynamic protection, using additional reservations, shielding vulnerable parts, etc.), the problem is only partially solved - the possibilities of the ammunition intended for hitting the tank also do not stand still. Nevertheless, the “old” vehicles may well survive in the modern battle against the enemy, who actively use modern anti-tank weapons.

The solution to the problem for these machines is to change the pattern of their use and upgrade optoelectronic equipment. Both of these decisions are aimed at pushing the tank deep into the battle formations, which reduces the likelihood of its detection and destruction. On the other hand, a tank with a long-range cannon and upgraded sighting equipment, and even more so with a tactical-level control system installed, is able to more effectively hit remote targets without “being substituted” for return fire from dangerous distances and angles.

In part, this is reminiscent of the transformation that the battle formations of the German tank forces underwent after the appearance of the heavy Tiger tanks. At the first stage of using the “Tigers”, in 1942 – 1943, the Germans actively used Panzerkeil-type battle formations — a tank wedge, with “Tigers” at the tip, covering the lighter machines. For a while, this tactic worked, but a change in the tactics of anti-tank defense of both the Soviet troops on the Eastern Front and the Western allies in North Africa, and then in Italy, led to an increase in the loss of new cars, despite their impressive security.

The new tactics of using the "Tigers" led to the change of the "wedge" "bell", Panzergloke - the former "wedge" turned inside. The “Tigers”, both in defense and in the offensive, were now in the depth of construction, while lighter tanks, motorized infantry on armored personnel carriers and reconnaissance armored vehicles formed the “wings” of battle order, the task of which was to grope the enemy, giving the command sufficient time and information to decide to enter into action heavy vehicles. The new tactics allowed to reduce the losses of the "Tigers", making the German heavy tank battalions an extremely formidable tool, for effectively countering which required the means of military, and even front line submission.

This tactic could not save Germany in view of the overwhelming economic superiority of the anti-Hitler coalition, however, like many other tactical achievements of the Germans of that period, it can, with appropriate adaptation, be used today.

Deep transformation

Nevertheless, the task of sharply increasing the combat survivability of the T-90 was set - and solved in the T-90AM (an export modification known as the T-90CM). The new combat compartment made it possible in part to solve the main problem - direct contact of the crew and the combat pack. The automatic loader with which this tank is equipped has the same carousel combat styling on the 22 of various types, including guided missiles, as on previous machines, however, unlike the T-72 and the early T-90, it is now protected armored cap. The ammunition outside the ammunition - another 18 shots, that is, shells and charges to them - is divided into two parts. Ten shots were placed in an armored "basket" in the back of the new turret, and the remaining eight shots in the fighting compartment were also able to be distributed to the least vulnerable points. Among other things, this modernization has dramatically increased the crew's ease of operation - after taking out ten 125-mm shots and laying them out of the reserved volume in the tank, it has become much more spacious.

The combat detachment of the upgraded T-90, according to available information, was received by the Russian military with enthusiasm, but the requirements for finishing the chassis of the vehicle delayed the purchase of this tank. It is possible that they will begin in the 2017 year, both in the form of supply of new T-90AM, and in the form of the release of the corresponding retrofit kits for tanks of previous years of construction. In combination with also improved aiming and navigation equipment, this transformation dramatically increases the range of possibilities for the unit equipped with such machines.

Intellectual uninhabitation

A radical step to correct the situation, however, could only be made with the advent of a fundamentally new tank, and such a tank was demonstrated by urbi et orbi at the parade in honor of the 70 anniversary of the Victory 9 in May 2015. The T-14 tank, created on the basis of the Armata advanced tracked platform, became the first fundamentally new vehicle for many decades, the key element of which is an uninhabited fighting compartment, which finally allowed to reliably isolate the crew from the ammunition. The crew is concentrated in the front of the tank, protected by the most powerful frontal armor, onboard armor in the area of ​​the control section is also strengthened. Inside the tank, the crew is separated from the ammunition by an armored bulkhead, which dramatically increases the chances of survival, even if the enemy succeeds in detonating the vehicle’s ammunition.

In the fighting compartment of the new tank, the shots are also located in a protected automated ammunition, the level of protection of which was increased, including by eliminating the crew from the middle part of the tank. The new layout of “Almaty” makes it a more secure machine than any Soviet or western tank, including the improved German “Leopards-2” and Israeli “Merkavas” of the later series, which have become the standard samples.

The elimination of the crew from the fighting compartment of “Armaty” forced one more problem to be solved: out of direct contact with the gun, the gunner and the commander of the vehicle actually find themselves in a situation of remote control of the weapon. This required a fundamentally different approach to the tank control system and the means of informing the crew about the situation. In fact, “Armata” became the first serial (and the production of the tank, albeit low-volume, but already out of the stage of experimental units) robotic tank, where the growth of awareness and security of the crew is achieved by introducing an additional link of “smart iron” between man and machine actuators .

How much will this change the situation on the battlefield as a whole? In the battle "Armata" has not yet gone.
Author:
Originator:
http://dfnc.ru/suhoputnaya/dlya-teh-kto-v-tanke/
55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ProkletyiPirat
    ProkletyiPirat April 2 2016 00: 36
    +20
    a lot of scribble about anything ..
    1. kunstkammer
      kunstkammer April 2 2016 12: 42
      -2
      a lot of scribble about anything ..

      seem to be.
      If the task is to remove the tanks deep into the defense, it is better to rivet more self-propelled guns and you will be happy.
      If Armata is remotely controlled, is it not better to really establish the production of robotic tanks without the direct presence of a crew in it?
      Drones operate over thousands of kilometers, and here the problem is several tens of kilometers.
      Indeed, it is necessary to rethink the use of tanks in general.
      But the main thing - it should already be not quite tanks in our current understanding.
      If Armata is half-robot, is it not more expedient to switch to robots right away?
      The benefit of experience in the design of such military products is enough.
      1. Nick
        Nick April 2 2016 17: 32
        +5
        Quote: kunstkammer
        If Armata is half-robot, is it not more expedient to switch to robots right away?

        The level of technological development does not yet allow the creation of a robot tank, which is able to solve the whole range of tasks facing a modern tank. But this is only for now ...
      2. Kalmar
        Kalmar April 2 2016 22: 34
        -1
        Quote: kunstkammer
        If the task is to remove the tanks deep into the defense, it is better to rivet more self-propelled guns and you will be happy.

        Fiercely plus. It seems that the tank was created in order to be, so to speak, at the forefront of the attack. If you take him to the rear, you get the usual self-propelled gun, only overbooked and excessively expensive.

        Quote: kunstkammer
        If Armata is remotely controlled, is it not better to really establish the production of robotic tanks without the direct presence of a crew in it?

        The first thing that comes to mind: how to provide noise immunity? The enemy will fly an airplane or helicopter with electronic warfare equipment into the air, and the remote control will simply close. Those. the crew in any case should be either in the tank itself, or very close to it.
        1. aiw
          aiw April 2 2016 22: 50
          +1
          > Furiously plus. The tank seems to have been created in order to be, so to speak, at the forefront of the attack. If you take him to the rear, you get an ordinary self-propelled gun, only overbooked and excessively expensive.

          Into the depths of discord. Take an interest in the effective range of RPGs and ATGMs to begin with.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar April 2 2016 23: 18
            +1
            Quote: aiw
            Take an interest in the effective range of RPGs and ATGMs to begin with.

            RPG okay, but with modern ATGMs the firing range is quite comparable with the firing range of tank guns (in some it even surpasses).
      3. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K April 2 2016 23: 14
        +3
        Quote: kunstkammer
        If the task is to remove the tanks deep into the defense, it is better to rivet more self-propelled guns and you will be happy ....
        If Armata is half-robot, is it not more expedient to switch to robots right away?

        Self-propelled guns will never replace tanks, because have neither dynamic, nor active, nor just armor on the tower. Therefore, they will never be used in direct fire combat. Yes, and the dimensions of modern self-propelled guns hoo what.
        All tanks are currently half-robots. Where did you see that the fighting mechanisms of the tanks were controlled manually. Charging, guidance, stabilization, shot, turret rotation - everything is mechanized with the help of electric motors. Manual mode is possible, but it is certain death on the battlefield, because manually driving the tank is just slow.
        About robots, for now, forget it. Until the T-14 shows itself in battle, no one robot based on the T-14 will release on the battlefield. The crew not only controls the fire of the tank, it hears and visually assesses the situation on the battlefield. Sitting at the armor with your own skin you feel from which side you are being beaten. The operator behind the bushes will not even be able to appreciate this, who and where is hammering from the tank.
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar April 2 2016 23: 26
          -3
          Quote: Алексей_К
          Therefore, they will never be used in direct fire combat.

          Firstly, they will, if the enemy does not have at hand enough long-range weapons. Secondly, is it important to fire directly?

          Quote: Алексей_К
          Yes, and the dimensions of modern self-propelled guns hoo what.

          What kind? Well, yes, the same 2С31 will be a meter higher than the T-90 (because of the tower); other dimensions are comparable. When compared with the T-14, the difference in size will be unprincipled, it seems to me.
          1. Aleksey_K
            Aleksey_K April 4 2016 23: 30
            +5
            Quote: Kalmar
            What kind? Well, yes, the same 2С31 will be a meter higher than the T-90 (because of the tower); other dimensions are comparable. When compared with the T-14, the difference in size will be unprincipled, it seems to me.

            This 2S31 "Vienna" of yours is made on the basis of the BMP-3. Armor type - rolled aluminum, bulletproof
            This is not a tank! How can you compare aluminum BMP with a tank, especially with the T-14?
            When I wrote about self-propelled guns, I meant more serious vehicles of the "Msta-S" type, created on the basis of the T-72 tank and having tank armor, and not aluminum cover. "Vienna" is a vehicle that is not intended to take part in an attack in direct contact with the enemy; it is not a vehicle for breaking through battle formations.
            Your phrase: "if the enemy does not have enough long-range weapons at hand" is simply surprising. Abrams has an ATGM with a range of up to 13 km. The infantry also has anti-tank weapons in bulk, such as TOW-2, with a range of up to 4.5 km.
            Therefore, self-propelled guns will never replace tanks.
      4. Svidetel 45
        Svidetel 45 April 3 2016 00: 02
        +2
        The robot tank has an Achilles heel - these are the operator’s control channels for it, it will be much easier to create interference than to disable it using any striking means - shells, ATGMs and the like, it is hardly possible to create an absolutely invulnerable noise-resistant communication.
    2. Locksmith
      Locksmith April 2 2016 19: 00
      0
      The key disadvantage of domestic main battle tanks developed by 60 – 70 of the last century is the low survival rate of the crew in the event of armor penetration - the tank’s tight layout does not allow the crew, ammunition and fuel to be separated far enough to eliminate fatal consequences if they hit the reserved volume of the vehicle. Anyway, this drawback will have to be taken into account for a long time - the upgraded T-72 will remain in service at least until 2030-s, T-90, repeating the layout solutions of the base machine - and up to 2050-x.
    3. Alekseev
      Alekseev April 2 2016 19: 19
      -1
      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
      a bunch of scribble

      Quote: kunstkammer
      like

      Yes, it seems.
      In particular, was the author himself ever in a BO tank?
      How is this "carousel ammo rack (AZ) .. protected by an armored cover"?
      The gunner with the commander, and between them the gun, are sitting on this very roundabout ammunition. What kind of lid is there in FIG?
      Yes, the opening of the armored partition there can not be in principle.
      To what are these "least vulnerable points" allocated to the 8 remaining rounds in the BO? They were previously in the most secluded place - on the bottom of the rear of the AZ, a couple of them, although in the T-64, T-80 were fixed at the commander and gunner's places, I don't remember in the T-72. A few more pieces in the storage tank near the m / v.
      We took them out into an armored "box", which is good, but why did the space appear? what lol
      Yes, and such a measure improved security in the BO a little - after all, 30 shots remained there, although at the very bottom.
      Unfortunately, the crew will still detonate one shell in a tank or 20 ...
      And the talk about the tight layout - from the evil one. Because only it allows you to reduce the size of the car, the reserved volume and thereby increase the armor.
      In my personal opinion, a more effective effect would be to give up burning cartridges ... But this is not easy, a rather serious rework of the AZ is inevitable. And, perhaps, some increase in the protection of the fuel tanks of the front and rear groups from the inside (protection) and the improvement of the software system in the sense of increasing the sensitivity of the sensors and increasing the stock (or efficiency) of the extinguishing agent.
      1. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K April 2 2016 23: 21
        +1
        Quote: Alekseev
        How is this "carousel ammo rack (AZ) .. protected by an armored cover"?

        The author meant that the ammunition outside the turret was separated from the turret by an armored, openable partition, which should save the crew if an external ammunition shell is detonated.
    4. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K April 2 2016 22: 50
      +2
      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
      a lot of scribble about anything ..

      Of course, it’s very difficult to understand an article about increasing the survivability of tanks and crews on the battlefield. It is clear that in 30 seconds it is generally very difficult to read carefully. Read more slowly, do not rush to be the first, delve into the meaning.
  2. Dam
    Dam April 2 2016 00: 52
    +5
    The main revolution implemented in Armate, something that can be controlled remotely from a tank, can also be controlled remotely from another place. The first MBT robot, that’s what’s of interest!
  3. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv April 2 2016 01: 53
    +9
    Unfortunately, the title of the article does not match the content.
    The material itself is a common set of phrases.
    Well ... Eheh.

    The boom is to wait for the housewives article about Armata, maybe they will write something interesting.
    yes
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 2 2016 10: 51
      +4
      Quote: Aleks tv
      The material itself is a common set of phrases.

      Welcome.

      And how did you like the original idea to remove tanks deep into the battle formation?
      I see that the "experts" here, as in artillery, do not really understand that with an increase in the maximum effective range of fire, it is not the distance to the enemy that increases, but the depth of influence on his battle formations.

      And for some reason the author fastened the "bell" ...
      1. lelikas
        lelikas April 2 2016 11: 43
        +4
        I read it, did not quite understand it, re-read it, then I got to the comments and was delighted - I'm not so stupid;))))
      2. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv April 2 2016 17: 56
        0
        Quote: Spade
        Quote: Aleks tv
        The material itself is a common set of phrases.

        Welcome.

        And how did you like the original idea to remove tanks deep into the battle formation?
        I see that the "experts" here, as in artillery, do not really understand that with an increase in the maximum effective range of fire, it is not the distance to the enemy that increases, but the depth of influence on his battle formations.

        And for some reason the author fastened the "bell" ...

        Welcome.
        The author simply decided to show his knowledge in the history of tactics)))
        Flashed, so to speak knowledge.
        That's it.
        wink
      3. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 3 2016 11: 35
        0
        "How did you like the original idea of ​​moving tanks deep into the battle formations?" ////

        And what is original in it? The usual English tactics of the 2nd World War and after. The infantry walks on foot in bulk, in small groups, heavy tanks - 200 meters behind. Maintain fire from behind. If you run into enemy tanks,
        the infantry kicks up, and those support tanks and reserve tanks move forward.
        And they are fighting a tank-against-tank battle. Infantry in the fight against tanks is not involved.

        The IDF has almost the same thing.
      4. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon April 4 2016 20: 14
        0
        Quote: Spade
        And how did you like the original idea to remove tanks deep into the battle formation?
        I look, the "experts" here, as in artillery, do not really understand that with an increase in the maximum range of effective

        This insane trend has been hovering for a long time - along with "tanks have outlived" and Soviet / Russian tanks have "low crew survival in case of armor penetration." Stamp on stamp
  4. Observer2014
    Observer2014 April 2 2016 01: 58
    +5
    Judging from the article. I understand that the "Armata" will not be used "with a bell and not with a wedge" But a tank that closes breakthroughs and covers the offensive. That is not surprising. For the massive use of this tank can easily provoke the enemy's use of electronic warfare. For me and not only, it remains a big mystery how things are on the "Armata" with countering electronic warfare? If ours succeeded (in terms of countering electronic warfare), especially considering the amount of electronics on board. So you can safely take off your hat to our designers!
    1. Rerih42rus
      Rerih42rus April 2 2016 04: 32
      +2
      Here I read that electronic warfare vehicles were widely used, from the first Soviet tanks with protection against the effects of a nuclear explosion, it was also written that electronic warfare is improving every year.
    2. Rerih42rus
      Rerih42rus April 2 2016 04: 32
      0
      Here I read that electronic warfare vehicles were widely used, from the first Soviet tanks with protection against the effects of a nuclear explosion, it was also written that electronic warfare is improving every year.
    3. Cro-Magnon
      Cro-Magnon April 2 2016 13: 54
      -1
      And what other than communication channels and CCHs can be affected by electronic warfare in a tank ?! Explain to the amateur ...
      1. Forest
        Forest April 2 2016 15: 50
        -1
        Will interfere with the review. But, if the interference can break through the armor, anti-nuclear defense and overpower the onboard network.
      2. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K April 2 2016 23: 34
        0
        Quote: Cro-Magnon
        And what other than communication channels and CCHs can be affected by electronic warfare in a tank ?! Explain to the amateur ...

        In the most modern tanks there are computers for controlling the battle not only on this tank, but also as part of the advancing units (this is interaction). Here EW and displays both computers and the connection between them out of order. Monitors are rippling, the commanders and their orders are no longer heard what to do - is unknown. Only visual destruction of the enemy. Remember how in films about the war, and it’s true, the battalion commander yells at the signalmen all the time - WHERE TO COMMUNICATE! Establish a connection immediately! Without communication, he simply does not imagine what is happening on the battlefield with its units. But before, even radio communications with tanks were not able to jam.
  5. yermolka
    yermolka April 2 2016 02: 09
    +3
    The information that "Armata" can be used as a full-fledged robot flashed in our resources, I really want to believe it
    1. tomatokin
      tomatokin April 2 2016 05: 52
      0
      What progress has come to unprecedented miracles! Robots inject, not a man ... yes
  6. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn April 2 2016 06: 21
    +5
    Quote: Observer2014
    If ours succeeded (in terms of counteracting electronic warfare), especially considering the amount of electronics on board, then you can safely take off your hat to our designers!

    You can safely shoot. Pledged. So it will work out.
  7. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack April 2 2016 07: 41
    +3
    good luck!!!! I want to believe - Everything will turn out! the article is not very informative but a plus!
  8. Gray 43
    Gray 43 April 2 2016 08: 05
    -2
    An article from the series: "Breathe your nose, keep your money in the Savings Bank"))))
  9. Served once
    Served once April 2 2016 08: 08
    +5
    I would like, I really want everything conceived by our designers to work out. As I recall (I mech-water) the tightness of the t-54,55,62, and the t72 is not far from them. Everything behind you is spinning, spinning, burning, smoke .. .And there was also the "miracle" PT-76.It's scary to remember the ferries, with their pecks even on concrete roads. How many cool vehicles there were in the CA! in reality. Long life to you "mazut"! hi
    1. Cro-Magnon
      Cro-Magnon April 2 2016 13: 56
      0
      You haven’t yet driven a BT or T-26 of the 30s ... wassat
      1. Served once
        Served once April 2 2016 17: 35
        0
        Even these "miracles" were enough for me up to my neck wink
  10. tchoni
    tchoni April 2 2016 08: 15
    +6
    I liked the article. Briefly, clearly, to the point and without unnecessary technical details. It is devoted not so much to "Armata" as to the evolution of the main battle tank of Russia in the post-Soviet period.
  11. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek April 2 2016 08: 33
    +2
    The bulk will be the T-90MS, and the T-14 will play the role of TIGERS. The main thing is that the T-15 should be made in the right amount.
  12. vmo
    vmo April 2 2016 08: 47
    -1
    Not an article, but a set of conclusions from other sources; not knowing the basics is not good!
  13. veselcak
    veselcak April 2 2016 08: 51
    +1
    very capacious article, the author forgot to cram into the title "unparalleled in the world"
  14. Gray brother
    Gray brother April 2 2016 09: 22
    +1
    I hoped that it would really be about security - reservation and security systems. And such a bummer.
  15. Furious bambr
    Furious bambr April 2 2016 09: 55
    +2
    Many letters. Not mastered ...
  16. Приговор
    Приговор April 2 2016 09: 59
    +3
    In fact, we were pleased with the changes in the T-90 platform. Upgrading to the T-90AM is no less important than the creation of the T-14 "Armata". It's time, it's time to change the T-72 and even more so, the T-64, which we still have in reserve. They are outdated not only morally, but also technically. Although, by selling them to third countries, our state can make great money. Their cost cannot be compared with their Western counterparts, in contrast to their efficiency.
    1. TOR2
      TOR2 April 2 2016 13: 19
      +1
      Quote: Sentence
      It's time, it's time to change the T-72

      Rather, change the way they are used. T-72 is a ready-made debugged platform for a remotely controlled module. A purely structural tank is a type of weapon that is least affected by electronic warfare, unless of course you have protected the equipment at the entrance. According to the communication system, it is foolish to rely only on a circular antenna.
      on the evolution of the approach to the protection of Russian tanks

      Means of destruction have evolved a long time ago, and in terms of the protection of tanks, the entire world tank building fell back to the initial stage. In addition to improving alloys and dynamic protection, new optical-electronic suppression systems and smarter and more flexible KAZ systems are now needed to allow the tank to work together with motorized rifle units. In addition, such a KAZ must be adapted for all tanks in service. It turns out that "Afghanit" does not count.
  17. 31rus2
    31rus2 April 2 2016 11: 30
    +2
    Dear, this is not just a weak change, which partially increases the survivability of the tank, a new approach is needed and it will be with the supply of new tanks and infantry fighting vehicles based on the "Armata", there will be a new tactic of using and reconciling both tanks and the corresponding escort, otherwise it will be cannot, now this whole complex is being tested and adapted in parts, but soon we will see the whole system from the general headquarters to the fighter, this is the new army
  18. Kenneth
    Kenneth April 2 2016 13: 59
    0
    For the same money, to build remote-controlled tanks modular for accelerated repair and re-profiling of robots. Or, in general, instead of tanks, build heavy armored personnel carriers, which are supported by self-propelled guns from the depths of defense.
    1. 31rus2
      31rus2 April 2 2016 14: 55
      0
      You are not far from the truth, they are already testing the BMP-3 robotic version, "Armata", only the beginning, further without a crew platform for various combat missions, this will be the future of the tank, a multifunctional robotic platform, in the article proposed for discussion, only temporary and far not the most effective measures
  19. Riv
    Riv April 2 2016 16: 09
    +3
    All the same "Armata" is an ingenious machine. I have never fired a shot, but there are already so many shell-shocked people ...
    1. Kenneth
      Kenneth April 2 2016 17: 05
      +3
      All the same, the most powerful weapon is the Aurora's nasal cannon. one shot and so many years of devastation.
  20. aiw
    aiw April 2 2016 19: 38
    +2
    We take the T-64, we make a remote control kit for it - a profit! How many thousands of them on reservation are that? ;-)
  21. tank64rus
    tank64rus April 2 2016 20: 12
    0
    The tank must meet a future war. The designer who will create such a machine will be a genius. But for this, military science must be at its best, which will be able to give it. I don’t know after Serdyukov’s pogrom whether she remained in Russia.
  22. ingenera
    ingenera April 2 2016 21: 57
    +3
    Quote: aiw
    We take the T-64, we make a remote control kit for it - a profit! How many thousands of them on reservation are that? ;-)

    This "remote control" will be the first victim of electronic warfare. And the electronics inside the tank are well protected by the same armor. Have you tried calling your cell phone from a tank with closed hatches? A modern tank is more likely to have optical systems vulnerable, including from conventional artillery and small arms fire. Yes, and when the elements of dynamic protection, located near the sights and observation devices, are triggered, they may well be damaged. And there are no invulnerable machines. Almost all losses of armored vehicles occur not because of its "vulnerability" but from tactically illiterate use of it
    1. aiw
      aiw April 2 2016 22: 13
      0
      Every tricky electronic warfare has its own broadband communication channel. And for every communication channel there is its own electronic warfare. No need to tell me about the basics, I'm still a physicist hi

      And the option with remote control for standing on the conservation tanks IMNO is quite relevant. These tanks still have nowhere to go (by the level of protection they no longer correspond, modernization will cost too much and they have no potential for modernization). It’s possible, of course, to put crews of estimators, but it’s a pity ... a simple set of remote control will not be much more expensive than ATGM, and it will come out very angrily as an avant-garde.
  23. got137
    got137 April 2 2016 23: 20
    +1
    Dear experts. After reading many articles on the tank theme, I never found a discussion about updating the tactics of tank units. Generally. And the combat use of the last ten years has shown that it is already time. Can someone tell me where to find it. As an artilleryman, I was always surprised, for example, by the lack of firing skills from closed OPs. But the tank battalion is almost an art brigade. Communication with the tankmen showed that they have about three hours at the school on this subject.
  24. got137
    got137 April 2 2016 23: 32
    0
    And with proper use, the current tanks work successfully. And they will be successful for a long time. Armata, in my opinion, is an attempt to simply remove the crew from the tower and create the most protected zone for the crew in the tank. And robots will not very soon become full tanks. Since the struggle against their electronic filling will also be added to the usual means of defeat. And there the virgin soil is not plowed)
  25. bravo-fab
    bravo-fab April 4 2016 17: 40
    0
    T90 SM ... the ammunition of 10 snares in the tower box comes into the tank tower manually, the crew is forced to withdraw the tank from the battle, get out, open the armored doors, pull out the ammunition and hand them out of the box into the hatch near the commander, and put it on there inside grooves ... stupidity, an intense battle is being fought, the crew immediately loses time and 10 shells from the tank ....