Military Review

Inhabited or remote controlled? Or talk about the present and future of towers for combat vehicles.

39

Disputes about whether combat vehicles should have habitable or remotely controlled towers do not subside. Despite all the sensors installed in the tower, is it necessary for the arrow to see the target directly?


Uninhabited towers capable of receiving large-caliber weapons became a reality, and the advantages and disadvantages of habitable and uninhabited towers are hotly debated by both military and manufacturers.

Technology towers developed rapidly in the last decade, especially the progress in a number of areas, ranging from sighting systems and ending with ammunition. Undoubtedly, the development will continue in the coming years.

One of the most noticeable trends is the use of uninhabited or remote technology on larger towers, which was previously the lot of relatively small remotely controlled combat modules (SDM).

The logic behind this is that an uninhabited tower is perhaps easier, allowing larger, remotely controlled models to be installed on smaller machines. In this case, the operator may have a greater lethal effect on the target, remaining under the protection of the machine body.

Staying inside

“Protection of one’s forces is still the only and most important element in active combat operations. Ensuring the safety of the soldier allows you to better focus on the combat mission, to conduct more thorough monitoring and assessment of the situation before its implementation, ”says Pamela Willgos, executive vice president of Kongsberg Protech Systems.

Norwegian company Kongsberg is best known for its DubSoft Protector, which was supplied in large numbers in the Stryker brigade of the US Army, although its larger medium caliber Protector MCT tower weighing 2000 kg was recently selected for the Stryker machine mortality program, since it was possible to install a caliber gun to 40 or 50 mm will allow the machine to add combat qualities that were seriously lacking up to the present, while maintaining the level of crew protection.

Inhabited or remote controlled? Or talk about the present and future of towers for combat vehicles.

Tower Protector MCT Norwegian company Kongsberg

In addition to the gun in the tower Protector MCT, you can install a smoke screen, a paired machine gun, various sensors and threat identification systems, says Willgos. A preliminary analysis of the Kongsberg MCT-30 DBMS project with an Orbital ATK 30-mm cannon was completed earlier this year in Norway.

The success of Kongsberg in the Stryker program has confirmed that remote technologies are becoming more acceptable to vehicles and there is a good reason to believe that more countries will take this path in the future.

“In an armored vehicle, the gunner-gunner is an important element and, at the same time, it is extremely vulnerable. To enable effective work from the protection of armor cars - that was the basis for the development of remote weapon systems, - added Willgos. “The available remote technology is not yet fully used, but we expect that trends in this direction will continue and the development of a system with a greater level of autonomy will continue.”

There are questions

The Italian concern Leonardo (formerly Finmeccanica) offers the uninhabited version of its Hitfist tower family, designated OWS (Overhead Weapon System). The company says that it can be installed on any wheeled or tracked vehicle, and its main weapon is the 25-mm or 30-mm gun.


Uninhabited tower Hitfist OWS Italian concern Leonardo

The concern Leonardo also reported that the system can be remotely controlled by one or two crew members. However, it is considered necessary for the operator to access the OWS tower through a special hatch, which allows you to have a direct all-round view of the battlefield, load ammunition load or perform simple maintenance.

It all depends on the personal preferences of the military. In the case of smaller smaller armored vehicles armed with an 5,56-mm or 7,62-mm machine gun, the operator may be happy to sit inside the hull and look outside using the camera system. But in the case of a larger tower with a 20-40-mm cannon with longer range, the operator may want to inspect the battlefield with his own eyes in order to better assess the current situation.

Consequently, when developing remotely controlled towers, manufacturers will have to decide the following issues: whether to provide space for the operator and to allow it to move to the tower with a sunroof, so that if necessary it is possible to assess the situation outside the car; whether large towers should be completely uninhabitable; and whether it is necessary to sacrifice the level of crew protection in order to preserve the full capabilities of the machine.

Oikun Eren, technical director of weapons systems in the Turkish company FNSS, said that the remote-controlled towers have several drawbacks. For example, since the crew is housed in a hull, it is completely dependent on sensors and opto-electronic systems, in contrast to the traditional two-seat layout, when the observation can be carried out from the highest point of the vehicle or through the periscope. This "provides an important advantage in the context of situational awareness."

Along this path follows the company FNSS, which develops a modular tower system called Teber, which can be offered both in the uninhabited and in the habitable version with weapons of different caliber. The prototype Teber turret in a double configuration is armed with a 30 / 40-mm chain-driven MK44 cannon and has a fire control system that allows you to fight targets in a search and strike mode.

Advantages in weight?

Eren also disagrees with the argument that remote towers have an advantage in mass compared to inhabited towers. It’s true that uninhabited systems eliminate the need for turret baskets, crew seats, hatches and periscopes, but on the other hand, you must now install two seats for the commander and the gunner in the hull along with the equipment they need, such as displays.

“The trick is that reducing the level of protection for an uninhabited tower allows for a reduction in the total mass,” he continued. “When the crew is inside the hull and you have the opportunity to lower the levels of protection, then you can significantly gain weight by installing a remote tower instead of an inhabited one.”

“Deciding which tower to install, habitable or remotely controlled, should be based on the configuration and tasks of a particular machine,” said Eren. For example, remote towers could be a good solution on commander platforms, where more space is needed for jobs, etc. It would also be suitable for a reconnaissance platform with a variety of optical and opto-electronic systems.

However, for the BMP in its pure form, fighting "on an equal footing with enemy machines, the twin turrets give greater situational awareness, and control over the battlefield makes it possible to get a decisive advantage." This is also true for reconnaissance vehicles, which theoretically have the ability to fire on the enemy.

In the medium-caliber segment, FNSS offers a completely new system — a single Saber turret armed with a M242 Enhanced Bushmaster 25-mm chain-driven cannon and a twin machine-gun 7,62-mm. Saber Tower was chosen as an unnamed country from the Middle East. "Also recently tested the Saber tower at a customer from the Middle East, and soon we expect a positive decision," - said Eren.

Towers against drones

Robotic vehicles have changed the face of hostilities. This has a twofold effect on the design of the towers: first, forcing manufacturers to look for better ways to destroy unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs); and second, companies are analyzing the possibility of future integration into robotic tower technology machines.

“The new goal today is the drone,” says Olivier Leke, head of the development of tower systems at Nexter. “If you want to destroy a drone, it’s not so easy.”

He believes that in the future the market for medium-caliber ammunition will surpass the market for large-caliber ammunition. The reason is partly in the fact that medium calibers have an advantage in combating UAVs, which, as a rule, are small targets. A special place here is occupied by air explosive shells, which are, for example, part of the CTAS 40-mm weapon system with telescopic ammunition of the company CTA International.


CTAS 40 mm armament system with telescopic ammunition from CTA International

“It’s impossible to destroy a large-caliber drone,” he continued. - This is an advantage of the 40 caliber mm. That is why the market for medium caliber ammunition will be more important in the future than the market for large calibers. ”

Lead engineer of the CV90 project at BAE Systems, Dan Lindell, stressed the importance of air strikes, automatic tracking systems and other automatic systems to combat unmanned systems.

“UAVs are already widely used, and I suppose this is just the beginning ... you have to shoot them down. Therefore, more and more turret systems will follow the path of the CV90 armored turrets, to which anti-aircraft capabilities have been added over time, ”he said.

However, it is likely that in the future the elements of tower technology will be included in the uninhabited systems themselves. Richard Muir, director of business development at Lockheed Martin, noted that the Squad Mission Support System robotic support unit was designed to perform a variety of tasks. It would be possible to install a DUBM or a small uninhabited tower on it. "There is no reason not allowing you to install weapons on it in the future."

David Koftri, commercial director of CTA International, said that he “can present a machine with a very low profile with a turret armed with our gun, controlled automatically or remotely,” although this refers to a not very near future.

In sight

Mr. Eren said that one of the main areas of technological development in the past decade has become sighting systems with panoramic sights for the commander and advanced automatic target tracking systems that were once available only on tanks, and "are currently being integrated into the medium-caliber turrets of infantry fighting vehicles."

Also rapidly developed technologies of fire control systems (FCS), whose computers are capable of conducting almost instant ballistic calculations taking into account wind speed, temperature and other factors. The lethality of the towers, which are increasingly being equipped with 30 mm, 35 mm and 40 mm armaments, also increased.

Mr. Leke said that when it comes to comparing manned towers with remotely controlled towers, then “at this stage the ability to see directly is very important, since the quality of perception of the human eye is better than that of any sight”. However, he noted that this could change in the future, as technology continues to evolve. "In five to six years, the situation may change and the technical vision of computers will improve."

The leading tower in the company's Nexter portfolio is the T40 model chosen by the French army for its prospective reconnaissance vehicle Jaguar. This model is already installed on the VBCI-2 armored vehicle (Véhicule Blindé de Combat d'Infanterie), where it is armed with the Cased Telescoped Armament System 40-mm system with telescopic ammunition (see the “Armament of the Tower” section).


French armored personnel carrier VBCI-2 with T40 turret

BAE Systems Haglunds, the manufacturer of the CV90 BMP, does not see any need for installing an uninhabited tower on the machine. The CV90 project lead engineer at the company said: “We studied a few, but until today there were no requirements from customers in the BMP segment ... On the contrary, the inhabited towers are preferred so far. However, we have no problems in delivering to the customers also an uninhabited tower. ”

Haglunds manufactures several turret models, from 30 and 35 mm to twin 120 mm mortars. Lindell said that both types of towers, both habitable and non-habitable, have advantages and that “if it comes to the survivability of the tower’s crew, then it’s better to lower it in the chassis.” However, when it comes to situational awareness, “yet the eyes and the brain are more perfect than the electronics on board.” Nevertheless, he noted that the company had tried automated systems in such a field as detecting threats and sees here a lot of room for their improvement.



Inhabited towers, such as this single-model Saber, are still very important on the battlefield.

Limited visibility

Malcolm Robinson, chief engineer at Lockheed Martin (LM) UK, agreed that uninhabited towers could impose restrictions on situational awareness. He said that about 10 years ago he participated in a project that provided for the installation of completely uninhabited towers on a machine developed as part of the British Scout program (since then it has developed into an Ajax project).

“At that time, a serious problem really arose, as situational awareness is critical for three crew members (if you consider the driver). Uninhabited towers had a very significant limitation. First of all, if you put a commander, a scout and a driver in the hull, they get a very limited field of view even with modern, stabilized surveillance systems. And although you can provide the crew with information from every conceivable sensor, it will still have very limited levels of situational awareness. ”

“But even if remotely operated towers are not suitable for every scenario, this is definitely the case when autonomous technologies are becoming an increasingly important component of such systems,” continued Robinson. “Automation can cover everything: from information management systems to automatic maintenance.” He said that LM developed the Primary Sight widescreen circular sight for the British Ajax vehicle, which can be replaced with the Kongsberg Protector combat module.

"Therefore, there are many ways to fulfill your needs, you can change the purpose of some of these towers for a number of other tasks, and it's almost like getting the best of both worlds."

Customers of the company still prefer to keep maximum control. Robinson develops his thought: “Quite often, we find out that the user would like a certain level of automation, but, in general, he wanted to be involved in the process and make final decisions. Therefore, they are not too eager to fully automate the processes of target detection, tracking, capturing and firing - they should not take place without the knowledge of the crew. ”


New British armored vehicle Ajax

Program participant

LM UK is leading the development of the towers in two large British combat vehicle programs. This is the WCSP program (Warrior Capability Sustainment Program), in which it is the main contractor and the Ajax BMP program, under which it develops a tower for General Dynamics UK. The two turrets with 40-mm cannons are very similar, down to the level of the subsystems, the main difference lies in the sight for the Ajax machine.

The initial plans envisaged the modernization of the existing BMP Warrior tower. However, during the preliminary analysis of the project in 2014, it was decided that it would be better to create a new combat module for this machine with an automatic ammunition processing system and a CT40 cannon.

According to Mr. Muir, this new tower is offered on the foreign market and the plant in Emphill is working on it.


Not as easy as it seems - the production of towers is a niche business. Lockheed Martin UK organized this assembly line in the British city of Emphill

“The Warrior tower is the basis for the new export tower, which is currently being offered to several foreign customers implementing their large programs, with great support from the British Department of Defense ... we plan to install it on wheeled and tracked platforms,” he explained.

Foreign customers of the company LM UK have requested anti-tank missiles for the turret, although at the moment this is not part of the tactical and technical requirements for Ajax or Warrior. A medium weight vehicle typically has a 30 or 40 mm caliber cannon with a valid 1500 meter range. The addition of an ATGM would allow these vehicles to "fight heavy armored vehicles at substantially greater distances, more than 4 km."

LM manufactures Javelin missiles in collaboration with Raytheon, so "that this is definitely our preferred ATGM offer." Muir said that LM UK had already developed an ATGM solution for one of its customers, although the company could not yet provide more information.


Anti-tank missile complex Javelin

“Since there are many users of the Javelin system in the world, we believe that it will be a very cost effective option for many armies,” he added.

Robinson said that the ability to have additional capabilities like ATGM will be very important in the future "because if the level of threat increased, then we need to exceed this threat."

Tower armament

Weapons with telescopic 40-mm CTAS (Cased Telescoped Armament System) munitions are manufactured by CTA International, a joint venture of BAE Systems and Nexter.

The CTAS system includes a cannon, a telescopic ammunition, an ammunition processing system, gun drives and the necessary electronics. In France, the system will be installed on a promising military armored car Jaguar EBRC, also the CT gun and ammunition are included in the British programs on Ajax and Warrior machines (WCSP).

David Koftri, commercial director of CTAI, said that over the past year he saw an increase in interest in OOBM and uninhabited towers, although the company does not see much difference here, because the CTAS weapon system is able to work in both categories.

Ammunition is one of the main activities of the company. The CTAS armament system includes the GPR-AB air-blasting projectile, currently undergoing a joint British-French qualification, while the helicopter / UAV projectile under the designation A3B is still under development. For the UK and France, the company is also working on a practical shot with a plastic case of reduced range.

“They were tested and tested at shooting ranges, including crew shooting,” he said. - These munitions have passed many tests over the past three to five years. As you can imagine, the qualifications of the two countries are a rather thorough and complicated process. Now we are at the end of this process, that is, we have a gun and two types of projectiles that can currently be used on real machines. ”

Advantages of accuracy

There are, of course, besides high levels of automation, other areas of technological development. Robinson noted here the increased accuracy of ammunition, as well as the armament of direct fire and the development of directional energy.

Lindell drew attention to the development of air explosive ordnance and automatic detection and tracking systems. The aiming systems are also becoming more and more effective, but “another problem has emerged - the rapid development of active protection complexes (KAZ) for machines of potential opponents is underway.”

“How to deal with them? Because anti-tank missiles and similar systems will be useless ... Today they are installed on many systems. We are already resolving the issues of fighting KAZ. ”

Mr. Eren noted that he expects to see new approaches in sensor technologies, data fusion, "which will improve the process of target detection, for example, as in the case of dual-band thermal imagers."

Robinson also noted real progress in sensory systems, saying that distributed sensors, such as those on UAVs, can greatly change the state of affairs. “Therefore, instead of having several long-range sensors, which are also platform-dependent, it is better to have more short-range sensors. You deploy them at the forefront, have the ability to independently control them, receive information from them and distribute it over a reliable broadband network. This concept will be further developed, I believe. "

In the future, tower technology may develop in any direction, although many experts hope to see the increasing use of computers and automation, even if this does not mean a completely uninhabited tower.

Mr. Ehren believes that it would be “logical to expect some intelligent algorithms to help the gunner, such as automatic target detection and identification systems that will classify targets and assign them priority” based on predefined criteria. He also considers the appearance of helmet-mounted displays (standard for modern fighter aviation) and integration with towers of military vehicles.

“Image processing techniques will help to combine images from cameras mounted on the hull and tower, issue them to the shooter’s helmet and update them when the head moves. This will significantly increase the level of situational awareness and control for the shooter. ”

Eren reiterated the development of sensor technology, saying that the integration of new sensors into the SLA will allow the crew to detect the location of the enemy much faster. Acoustic and laser shot detection systems, as well as advanced warning systems for laser irradiation, will be widely used among them.

“I would also not be surprised at the appearance of guided projectiles fired from main armament, because they very effectively hit targets out of sight,” added Eren.

Materials used:
www.kongsberg.com
www.leonardocompany.com
www.fnss.com.tr
www.nexter-group.fr
www.lockheedmartin.com
www.baesystems.com
www.cta-international.com
www.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Author:
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nix1986
    Nix1986 11 July 2016 07: 05
    +9
    Of course inhabited, no automatic loader, only wad, cap, etch and powder magazine below. And for situational awareness, the observation mast and spyglass. I was pleased with the pearl that the human eye is better than any sensors, then why all these antics around all optical technologies, etc.?! Evolutionarily, there will certainly be an uninhabited tower and a monocoque body made of carbon like supercars and the possibility of an unmanned mode. It is foolish to prevent this, therefore, if there are problems with sit.information, then they need to be solved, and not put a person in a tower and give him a spyglass.
    1. serega.fedotov
      serega.fedotov 11 July 2016 08: 40
      +1
      Now the towers are about the same, but uninhabited towers have just begun to actively develop, but the crew will not grow extra hands, the development limit has been reached.
      And if you equip the inhabited tower with a super-duper automatic loader, and with a particularly advanced guidance system, what the hell is a man there?
    2. Malkor
      Malkor 11 July 2016 08: 56
      +2
      Live observation is preferable than through a monitor. The human eye is a very accurate device created by nature. For a monitor to give an overview and a picture of appropriate quality, a camera-monitor system coupled with other requirements (reliability, durability, and resistance to stress) will be extremely expensive.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 11 July 2016 11: 34
        +5
        "Live observation is preferable to monitor.
        The human eye is a very precise device created by nature "////

        Misconception. Optical systems have far exceeded the capabilities of the eye.
        And optics combined with comp. processing gives incredible opportunities.
        For example, all objects in the panorama that fall out of natural in color,
        form, heat, speed of movement, the software can automatically mark on the display as suspicious, highlighting in color or symbol.
        1. i80186
          i80186 11 July 2016 19: 03
          +3
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Misconception. Optical systems have far exceeded the capabilities of the eye.

          Not really. Of course the eye is better. This is another matter. The skill of observing terrain objects is extremely difficult to acquire. As a gunner-tank operator, I say. And in this the attitude of the machine vision system is certainly more efficient. Especially when you consider the training of the operator. Nevertheless, a trained gunner may be such that no automated system ever dreamed of. For example, throw a shell into the dormer window for one and a half kilometers, and without using a range finder, through a simple hinged optical sight. In the same way, with observation, for example, a machine vision system is very unlikely to recognize changes in the area that occurred without direct observation of it. That is, of course, she recognizes the movement, the thermal signature, but only so far all this is in her field of vision. A person is not so, a person will easily and naturally notice changes in the terrain on which they drove half an hour ago.
          By the way, they say in Iraq, the sighting system with a black-and-white monitor on Bradley delivered a lot. Very well, as they say, recognized her friends and foes. Everyone was very pleased. smile
        2. Monarchist
          Monarchist 12 July 2016 17: 33
          0
          Imagine this picture: a tank with an uninhabited turret and a bunch of lenses, and the villains beat all the "eyes" of the tank? Boldly approach it and do what you want (in WWII, they deliberately hit the viewing slits). Are there many benefits from such a tank?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Verdun
        Verdun 11 July 2016 11: 45
        0
        Quote: Malkor
        Live observation is preferable than through a monitor.

        The point here is not so much in the accuracy of the human eye, but in the fact that the electronics and optics responsible for controlling the uninhabited tower are quite sensitive to shocks. They become the first victims of hits in the tank, even if the armor has not received through damage. From an inhabited tower, you can fire in the old fashioned way. And the uninhabited tower becomes blind. At the same time, as a designer, even now in the past, I don’t see any reasons preventing the creation of a tower, the reservation of which will be on the same level with the rest of the machine. Talking about saving weight seems unconvincing to me. By installing an uninhabited tower, the designers simplify the layout decisions for themselves, but otherwise ... In battle, the tank is alive as long as it can fire. It is easy to imagine a situation when, after a mine explosion, the tank has a damaged track and the electronics are out of order. How many chances will the crew have? I am ready to agree on the justification for installing an uninhabited tower on vehicles with bulletproof armor. But MBT? In order to complete the picture, it would be nice to get acquainted with the statistics. How often were the tanks struck by hitting the tower? But supporters of uninhabited towers are silent about these statistics.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 11 July 2016 12: 40
          +1
          "electronics and optics responsible for the control of the uninhabited tower,
          quite sensitive to shaking.
          They become the first victims of being hit by a tank "////

          Not at all. It is packed in cases with vibration-heat-shock protection.
          located behind bulletproof ultra-transparent armor-glasses of 5 cm thick. It has a self-cleaning system.
          Therefore, such devices cost tens of thousands of dollars.
          1. Verdun
            Verdun 11 July 2016 12: 49
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Not at all.

            Your fellow countryman, who really served in the tank units of Israel, with whom I had a chance to communicate, had a completely different opinion. He claimed that this was the trouble of all tanks - both the M-60 and Merkava. He said that it’s especially offensive to realize this, just when you know how many tens of thousands of dollars all this equipment costs.))
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 11 July 2016 17: 39
              +1
              Maybe he came up with something like that.
              But there is no alternative. The uninhabited tower is just
              transitional stage to an uninhabited tank.
              Therefore, the optics will have to be fixed more securely and protected
              its settings from shock shocks and especially vibration.
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Logos
          Logos 11 July 2016 17: 41
          +1
          electronics and optics responsible for controlling the uninhabited tower are quite sensitive to shocks

          As a designer, you should know that electronics and optics are also used in the inhabited towers of modern armored vehicles. The times when tankers aimed their guns at a mechanical sight and deployed a turret and a gun using handwheels remained in the distant past at the dawn of tank building
      4. serega.fedotov
        serega.fedotov 11 July 2016 12: 50
        +1
        Quote: Malkor
        Live observation is preferable than through a monitor. The human eye is a very accurate device created by nature. For a monitor to give an overview and a picture of appropriate quality, a camera-monitor system coupled with other requirements (reliability, durability, and resistance to stress) will be extremely expensive.

        I have to agree with this, for example, it’s clear to me where the barrel is looking in the hands and the position relative to it / body or vehicle / But correlating the picture on the monitor and the actual position of the barrel is much more complicated! But this is a completely solved problem
        1. ILDM1986
          ILDM1986 19 July 2016 02: 28
          0
          Gentlemen, in the end, it is introduced through observation devices — these are periscopes, or thermal imagers, or video cameras. This can only be avoided by sticking your head out of the tank, which is unacceptable in a modern war. In addition, the ammunition revolution is coming - telescopic multitasking with dist. undermining, they need special guidance systems, aiming through the barrel prokanet. So reconcile - the tank will inevitably be surrounded by sensors, their data will be processed and given to the operator, and as a result, all this fool will work in automatic mode. All elements of the weapons of the future are being used now, and these conversations and disputes are about nothing.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  2. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 11 July 2016 08: 27
    +6
    It's funny, but in recent years, light armored vehicles become similar to the classics of the 20-30s due to the bolts that attach the mounted armor. wassat
    1. venik
      venik 11 July 2016 08: 44
      +5
      Quote: kugelblitz
      It's funny, but in recent years, light armored vehicles become similar to the classics of the 20-30s due to bolts of attachment of mounted armor


      And if you add to this a return to the vertical arrangement of the armor (side) of the hulls and towers, then the similarity becomes even greater !!!
    2. venik
      venik 11 July 2016 08: 44
      0
      Quote: kugelblitz
      It's funny, but in recent years, light armored vehicles become similar to the classics of the 20-30s due to bolts of attachment of mounted armor


      And if you add to this a return to the vertical arrangement of the armor (side) of the hulls and towers, then the similarity becomes even greater !!!
  3. venik
    venik 11 July 2016 08: 31
    +3
    Hmmm .... The only advantage of an inhabited tower is that it, if desired, can be made CHEAPER compared to a remotely controlled module. Other advantages on the horizon, something is not visible ....
    And as for the fact that the human eye is "more reliable" - then the easiest way is finally to stick your head out of the hatch and turn it in all directions (unless, of course, a spare (head) is available ...)!
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 11 July 2016 08: 46
      +7
      Quote: venik
      And as for the fact that the human eye is "safer" - then the easiest way is to stick your head out of the hatch and turn it in all directions

      This is what we are talking about.
      The only difference between an inhabited and an uninhabited tower in terms of situational awareness is the ability to "stick your head out"

      If the commander and / or the weapon operator are sitting "in combat", having closed the hatches, then absolutely plane-parallel, where their heads are located, above the turret ring or below, the situational awareness is the same.
      1. Professor
        Professor 11 July 2016 09: 13
        +7
        Quote: Spade
        The only difference between an inhabited and an uninhabited tower in terms of situational awareness is the ability to "stick your head out"

        And in the uninhabited you can put a Bosko under the bullets. Well, if you really want to.
      2. venik
        venik 11 July 2016 19: 07
        0
        Quote: Spade
        The only difference between an inhabited and an uninhabited tower in terms of situational awareness is the ability to "stick your head out"


        Dear Marshal! Have you ever tried this? Especially when "whistles in front of your nose"? I am convinced not! Such a trick can only be done by a suicide bomber, kamikaze, or completely "crazy", convinced that he has a spare boss in his pouch (with smarter brains) !!!
        1. Monarchist
          Monarchist 12 July 2016 17: 39
          0
          Where are they issued?
      3. venik
        venik 11 July 2016 19: 07
        0
        Quote: Spade
        The only difference between an inhabited and an uninhabited tower in terms of situational awareness is the ability to "stick your head out"


        Dear Marshal! Have you ever tried this? Especially when "whistles in front of your nose"? I am convinced not! Such a trick can only be done by a suicide bomber, kamikaze, or completely "crazy", convinced that he has a spare boss in his pouch (with smarter brains) !!!
    2. Malkor
      Malkor 11 July 2016 08: 58
      0
      Not funny. Sometimes tankers have to do so due to various reasons (smoke, loss of orientation, failure of surveillance devices, etc.)
      1. Nix1986
        Nix1986 11 July 2016 09: 35
        +1
        You probably didn’t understand, nobody canceled personal hatches for crew members, look at our armature. So if necessary, the opportunity to end his life with honor sticking his head under the bullets will be.
        1. Professor
          Professor 11 July 2016 09: 45
          +1
          Quote: Nix1986
          You probably didn’t understand, nobody canceled personal hatches for crew members, look at our armature. So if necessary, the opportunity to end his life with honor sticking his head under the bullets will be.

          He looked at Armata. Well, the commander will stick Bosko out of the hatch, and what kind of review will be revealed to him? No.

          PS
          Here is a good article on towers. Recommend.
          Turrets on a leash
          1. Nix1986
            Nix1986 11 July 2016 11: 25
            0
            I'm afraid the tower will also not be much better, so the clutch of the tank commander must be included in the equipment set of the tank commander. Need a review? I parked near the pillar, climbed up - look, you babble !!!
          2. corporal
            corporal 11 July 2016 12: 22
            0
            Quote: Professor
            Here is a good article on towers. Recommend.
            Turrets on a leash

            laughing Pictures are beautiful good and nice letters wassat
        2. Monarchist
          Monarchist 12 July 2016 17: 41
          0
          Have you personally felt or sat in Armata
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 11 July 2016 11: 41
        +2
        Imagine that a tank commander is a submarine commander.
        Under no circumstances should a submarine commander emerge, get out
        from the cabin and start looking around: "where are we? where are we going?" ...
        You need to get used to using the devices and know that there is nothing
        except appliances.
        1. Tsoy
          Tsoy 11 July 2016 16: 22
          -1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Under no circumstances should the submarine commander float


          And especially to open hatches underwater for situational awareness. laughing except for the Chukchi fleet ...
      3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Kenneth
    Kenneth 11 July 2016 09: 28
    0
    I wonder what will happen to these sexors if another hour ride through the mud
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 11 July 2016 10: 15
      +2
      Yes, nothing will happen, they are not fools who are developing it.
      1. corporal
        corporal 11 July 2016 12: 36
        +1
        Quote: Kenneth
        if another hour ride through the mud

        Quote: cth; fyn
        Yes, nothing will happen,

        It will be, it will be. Do not even doubt it. A ground vehicle is not an airplane (helicopter). It is in the sky that the sensors are "blowing a fresh breeze," and on the ground, all these cameras-sensors will quickly be clogged with some shit.
        However, a washer system can help.
      2. Verdun
        Verdun 11 July 2016 15: 38
        0
        Quote: cth; fyn
        Yes, nothing will happen, they are not fools who are developing it.

        Probably the most electronics-packed tank to date is the Leclerc. Read how long it takes to adjust its filling after simply transporting a tank on a trailer and what the tankers using this vehicle think about it. Isn't that why this miracle, saturated with "reliable modern electronics", has not received wide distribution?
        1. Kenneth
          Kenneth 11 July 2016 16: 43
          0
          I wonder what will happen to this electronics if the tank is cooked with a shell. Even without breaking through.
    2. Nix1986
      Nix1986 11 July 2016 12: 34
      0
      So that there is nothing with the sexor, cover it laughing
      1. Kenneth
        Kenneth 11 July 2016 16: 45
        0
        It always works.
    3. Logos
      Logos 11 July 2016 17: 45
      +2
      Nothing will happen; modern tanks have water and air purification systems for observation devices. And what's the difference that stands on the other side of the triplex - the human eye or a video camera? Yes, no!
  5. Kozliu
    Kozliu 11 July 2016 12: 34
    +1
    Manufacturers are clearly cunning with better situational awareness with direct line of sight and inhabited tower.
    The human eye sees only during the day, can be easily deceived in poorly lit smoke and when the enemy uses camouflage.
    Only devices / cameras, thermal imagers / sensors / radars, systems for automatic search and tracking of targets and l / s to train to work only on devices.
  6. Operator
    Operator 11 July 2016 12: 35
    +6
    Inhabited or non-inhabited tower - now on the drum: the situation is monitored in 99 percent of cases through surveillance devices - periscopes, sights, video cameras or thermal imagers. Moreover, in 50 percent of cases it is through thermal imagers (dark time of day, smoke, dust).

    In addition, modern 20, 30 and 40-mm guns are designed for combat at a distance of 500 meters or more, where you can only see the target using optics or electronics.

    Therefore, it’s not even worth discussing the nonsense that the military allegedly prefers to hang out of the hatch and take an eagle eye (without binoculars, only hardcore) to survey the surroundings.

    The stability of modern electronics to shocks is proved by its use in guided artillery shells in GOS, and the minimal size and relative cheapness of electronics makes it possible to place security cameras in excess so that the computer forms a complete viewing area with the issuance of an individual picture for each crew member. It will blow part of the chambers by explosion, splinters or shelling - it does not matter, their functions will duplicate the remaining intact or standby from a mechanized installation.

    Plus, the ability to automatically recognize targets by their optical signature, movement dynamics and other characteristic features.

    If there is no money for an uninhabited tower in the budget (the FSE went to purchase Penguins and other husks) - just say so, and do not engage in technical flood.
    1. Logos
      Logos 11 July 2016 17: 52
      +2
      Therefore, it’s not even worth discussing the nonsense that the military supposedly prefer to hang out of the hatch with an eagle eye

      This is generally a rather strange topic for discussion. It seems that back in the years of the Second World War, it turned out that sticking turnips out of the hatch during battle was very harmful to the health of the tanker, and our designers urgently had to install on the t-34-76 kombenoshenki and periscope observation devices of the MK-4 type - just to get out of the hatch did not have to stick out. Why it is necessary to observe the battlefield live in our time, when technology has gone far ahead from the time of the Second World War, is a mystery
  7. Denimax
    Denimax 11 July 2016 17: 15
    +1
    Somehow flew out of my head.) Now there is the concept of a night battle. Those who do not have thermal imagers and NVD will obviously be the loser. Fight at night!