11.08.15/12:32
Tank "Armata" - rotten junk in a new package. Episode 1

I will not analyze in detail all the already identified shortcomings of this supposedly newest tank. I will just list them. It's weird, cardboard looking armor. This is an unfinished transmission. This is an ancient smoothbore gun. This is an unfinished optical guidance system. This is the presence of an overly powerful radar station (RLS). This is an outrageously high price. This is generally a non-compliance of the tank with the requirements of the Ministry of Defense.

I will not dwell on the statements of Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin that all tank-building countries (USA, Germany, France, Israel) are allegedly 15-20 years behind Russia. This enchanting nonsense has also already been commented on. Only very narrow-minded quilted jackets, accustomed to believing everything that pours out on them from the TV, can believe this nonsense.

New in the Armata tank is only the engine with transmission, radar and uninhabited turret. Here we are gradually approaching the main thing. I will touch on just one point, which, in my opinion, is the key to this "miracle", and which makes this tank a dull shit.

Automatic loader - disposable tank.

Why did they make an uninhabited tower in the new tank? The official answer reads: "an uninhabited tower and an armored capsule in which the crew remains intact even when the ammunition is blown up." And why should the ammunition explode? And from the fact that the designers of the tank left in it an ancient Soviet automatic loader, thanks to which the entire ammunition load of the tank is located in the turret compartment. In all previous Soviet tanks with an automatic loader (T-72, T-80, T-90), the commander and gunner actually sat on the ammunition load, and the driver in front of the ammunition load. If the ammunition was damaged when a projectile or rocket hit, then, depending on the degree of damage, it either caught fire or immediately exploded. In the first case, the tank crew has a chance to survive (and the driver has more of them), in the second case there is no chance. That is, the crew of a Soviet tank is sitting on a powder keg, ready to explode at any moment.

How often is the ammunition load of Soviet tanks damaged in battle? Look at the photos from Ukraine, how many wrecked tanks with the turret torn off on both sides. This is a standard situation for Soviet tanks. In fact, Soviet tanks with automatic loaders are disposable tanks. They live in battle until the first (maximum - second) hit. Because after the explosion of ammunition, they are not repairable. During the Second World War, supposedly the best Soviet medium tank in the world, the T-34, was nicknamed "The Mass Grave". With good reason, you can also call all Soviet tanks with an automatic loader. That is, all the tanks that are now in service with the Russian army.

Automatic loader - Soviet / Russian exclusive.

Do foreign tanks have a loading author? Not anymore. Used to be with the French. They abandoned it, returning to the old, time-tested, manual loading. That is, the clown Rogozin can rightfully say that all Russian tanks have no analogues in the world. Only this will not be a plus for our tanks, but a minus.

For all foreign tanks, the ammunition is actually located outside the tank turret, behind an armored curtain. The curtain opens for a short time while the loader takes the next projectile. The rest of the time, the armored curtain is closed, and the ammunition is separated from the tank and crew. In the event of an ammunition detonation, the energy of the explosion mainly propagates upward due to the specific design of the projectile storage. Therefore, the maximum that happens to a foreign tank when the ammunition load is blown up is the jamming of the turret. The tank itself does not lose mobility, and can leave the battlefield on its own.

The disadvantages of the automatic loader are unrecoverable.

And so we created an allegedly absolutely new and coolest Russian tank "Armata" in the world with a dense problem that has been around for several decades. How did the designers solve the problem of the explosiveness of the ammunition load? They put the entire crew into a special armored capsule. This is a half solution. Yes, the crew got more chances to survive. But the tank will still explode when a projectile or rocket hits it, and turn into a pile of scrap metal, in which (or next to which) an armored capsule with a crew will lie.

Great idea! A battle is going on around, bullets and shells are whistling, and the crew (if they survived and were not injured as a result of an explosion of ammunition) either gets out of it during the battle and gets to their own on foot, or sits until the end of the battle in an armored capsule, and then gets on foot to theirs.

Look at YouTube for a bunch of videos of the explosion of Soviet tank ammunition. Look there at the work of the American Javelin anti-tank missile against Soviet tanks. It explodes above the tank turret, exactly above the ammunition load, causing the ammunition to explode. The dynamic protection of the tank in this case is absolutely useless. The expensive Armata will be as disposable as all previous Soviet tanks. Only many times more expensive. Who needs this shit? Who will buy it in this case?

All other shortcomings of the "Armata" in comparison with the automatic loader seem ridiculous and not serious. Who came up with and approved this insanity? Who is responsible for this, and how? The case with "Armata" is another proof of the degradation of the Russian elites.

Tanks in recent decades have been buried more often and more stubbornly than any other type of weapon. In recent years, marked by a sharp reduction in the tank fleet of most developed countries compared to the times of the Cold War, the question of the future of the tank has again become one of the most discussed among specialists and amateurs. In Russia, interest in the problem especially grew after the reduction of the tank fleet in the first half of the 2010s from 23 to about 6-7 thousand units, and the demonstration in 2015 of the first vehicles of the new Armata family. The tank units of many other armies are undergoing a radical reduction simultaneously with attempts to modernize.

Thus, in Germany, the tank fleet, which numbered more than 2000 vehicles at the end of the 80s, was reduced to a little more than two hundred units, the number of tanks in service and in the reserve of the US Army and Marine Corps fell from more than 10 thousand units to 5 thousand with a little , a number of countries abandoned tanks completely.

At the same time, despite the radical reduction in the number of tanks in general, the leading military powers do not intend to abandon them altogether. This is where watching cuts can play a bad joke - just like someone looking at the sharp decline in the number of aircraft carriers in the US and British navies after the end of World War II, would say that these ships will soon disappear from the scene.

In the case of tanks, based on the experience of recent conflicts, the current level of equipment of the armed forces of developed countries, as well as what can actually be achieved in the foreseeable future, it can be argued that, at least over the next 3-4 decades, the main combat tanks will retain their importance as the main strike force of units and formations of the ground forces. Tanks, being objectively the most protected, survivable and heavily armed combat vehicles on the battlefield, will continue to determine the combat stability of ground forces units in most types of combat operations.

Only fundamental discoveries and inventions in the field of physics can move the tank from this place - for example, the creation of anti-gravity engines, which will allow creating combat vehicles of a completely different level - but so far nothing portends such epoch-making changes.

Or, more realistically, a leap in the development of IT and robotics, which will make it possible to create robotic combat vehicles with perfect artificial intelligence. Such machines, unlike existing and promising robots, will not depend on communication lines that are extremely vulnerable to modern electronic warfare and will be able to operate completely autonomously, displacing traditional tanks and other equipment. However, this task, taking into account the level of modern technology and promising developments, also seems unsolvable, and, in addition, even in the armies of robots, for sure, heavily armored multi-purpose combat vehicles with powerful weapons will remain, which will become the heirs of tanks.

Obviously, among the machines that will operate on the battlefield 25-30 years later, there will be a lot of familiar names. Modernized T-72 and T-90, "Leopard-2", M-1 "Abrams", "Merkava", "Challengers" and other achievements of design thought of the 70s, improved in the 80s, modernized in the 90s and those that continue to improve now, mainly in terms of filling and body kit, will continue to be in the ranks of the armies of fully developed countries. Less developed countries also have older vehicles: T-55, early T-72, numerous modernized (and not so) products of the Western tank industry: from M-60 to early versions of the second Leopard.

T-34 successor

Of course, new vehicles will also enter the battlefield, but there will be very few of them, and literally a few countries from among those that produce main battle tanks today will be able to boast of new products. In this case, the first sign, which is already obvious, will be the Russian machine, known as the T-14 "Armata".

Armata, created as part of the development of a whole family of vehicles on a unified platform, was built according to a new layout with an uninhabited turret and accommodation for a crew of 3 in an armored capsule separated from the turret and automatic loader. Such an arrangement, firstly, drastically reduces the frontal projection of the tank, especially in its most affected upper part, which makes the vehicle hard to hit, and secondly, it significantly increases the crew's chances of surviving in the event of a successful hit. Thirdly, the uninhabited tower makes it easier to equip the tank with a large-caliber gun. Currently, the "Armata" has a 125-mm cannon, but it is known that, if necessary, it can be equipped with a 152-mm gun, created for the promising T-95 tank, which was not put into service due to excessive cost. The placement of such a weapon on a tank was worked out back in Soviet times (for example, the Leningrad "object 292").

An increase in the caliber of the main armament is dictated by the need to ensure a reliable defeat of both existing and promising enemy armored vehicles, including taking into account their possible modernization, however, given the cessation of the development of most of the programs of new tanks in Western countries, the military considered it possible to get by with the upgraded 125-millimeter cannon.

The entire ammunition of the main gun is planned to be placed under the tower. Looking ahead, we note that this gives the T-14 a fundamental advantage over promising Western projects, in which it is planned to keep the placement of ammunition in the aft part of the tower, which increases its size compared to the T-14 tower and increases the likelihood of instant destruction of the tank when it enters the compartment ammunition.

The protection of the tank, in addition to the traditional combined armor protection and built-in dynamic protection, is provided by the Afghanit active protection complex, capable of destroying or knocking off the course of projectiles approaching the tank.

The capabilities of the fire control system have fundamentally increased. Given the new layout, the crew lost the possibility of a circular view of the battlefield with their own eyes through the periscopes, and a much greater load falls on the detection and target designation systems. The detection and target designation system has optical, thermal imaging, infrared channels. In addition, it will include a laser rangefinder and radar station, and information about the situation will be displayed on screens that will create the effect of "seeing through the armor."

The T-14, despite its greater weight compared to modern Russian vehicles (more than 50 tons versus 46.5 tons for the T-90), has no less mobility. The tank is equipped with a diesel engine with a capacity of 1500 horsepower, which provides power supply of almost 30 horsepower per ton of weight and excellent mobility characteristics. In general, if the designers manage to fully realize their plans, then the T-95 can become for the new, fifth generation of combat vehicles the same thing that the T-34 once became - a role model.

What do they have?

Surprising as it may seem in today's environment, Russia is currently proving to be the clear leader in the development of the latest battle tank. Most other developed countries prefer to upgrade existing machines. The United States followed this path after the global economic crisis forced the richest country in the Western world to abandon the ambitious Future Combat System (FCS) program, which developed various combat vehicles, including the main battle tank. The fact that none of the FCS tank projects provided a radical superiority over the possible modernization of the M1 tank, which would justify a sharp price increase, also played a role.

It should be noted here that the United States, in principle, was somewhat more fortunate than Russia. It is possible to argue about the comparative characteristics of the late generation Soviet vehicles and the Abrams to the point of hoarseness, but one advantage of the American remains undeniable - a much simpler upgrade, which allows, in fact, to build a new tank on the existing basis. The same can be said about the rest of the modern tanks of the West.

As a result, in 2009 it was announced that in the coming decades the US armed forces would be equipped with the M1A3 tank (still having the "experimental" E3 index). The new machine will have less weight - within 55 tons compared to today's 62. This reduction will be achieved through a new turret with an automatic loader, modeled after the French Leclerc tank. The tank is also supposed to be equipped with a diesel engine, the latest fire control system and, possibly, a new gun / launcher developed under the FCS program. These tanks, which are planned to be built on the basis of the M1 and M1A1 vehicles located at the storage bases, will be in service at least until the 40s in parallel with the M1A2 tanks.

The crisis also affected the plans of other countries, which led to another round of pooling efforts.

In Germany, at the beginning of the 2010s, the Neue Gepanzerte Platforme (NGP) program was frozen, where, just like on a promising Russian machine, weapons are supposed to be placed in an uninhabited tower. The heir to the Panthers, Tigers and Leopards was supposed to be armed with a 140-mm smoothbore gun / launcher.

France, which currently has one of the most modern main battle tanks in service - the Leclerc, created in the 80-90s, also plans to get by with its modernization in the coming decades - mainly by installing a more powerful gun and a more advanced control system fire.

Nevertheless, the appearance of the "Armata" made European tank builders think about creating a promising vehicle. In the summer of 2015, it became known that two European manufacturers of armored vehicles - the German company Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and the French Nexter Systems - agreed to create a joint concern on a parity basis.

The new firm will be called KANT (KMW and Nexter Together) and will be headquartered in Amsterdam. The transaction will be completed by January 2016, both participants will receive a 50 percent stake in the project.

The merger was one of the largest such deals in the EU defense market and creates a new strong player in the armaments sector for the ground forces. The resulting group has an order backlog of 9 billion euros with total annual sales of more than 2 billion euros. About 6,000 people will work at its enterprises.

One of the reasons that pushed the companies to merge, according to the French military department, was the desire to strengthen the export direction of both firms. In the Nexter sales structure, the share of supplies for foreign customers is 56 percent, in the KMW sales structure it reaches 80 percent. At a number of tenders for the supply of ground forces equipment (say, to the Baltic countries or to Qatar), until recently, companies acted as competitors.

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann is a German engineering concern, whose major shareholders are the Bode family (Wegmann group) and the Siemens corporation. Sales in 2014 amounted to 747 million euros. The main types of products include, in particular, Leopard 2 tanks, Puma infantry fighting vehicles, Boxer armored personnel carriers, PzH 2000 self-propelled gun mounts.

A month earlier, information appeared about the desire of the Germans and the French to jointly create a new combat vehicle, as reported by the newspaper Die Welt.

The new tank should be created by 2030 - by this time the service life of the Leopard-2 tanks, which are in service with the armies of several European countries, will expire. "The technical requirements for the system have already been presented and defined in the framework of the German-French cooperation," - said the State Secretary of the Ministry of Defense of Germany, Markus Grübel (Markus Grübel). According to him, within three years - from 2015 to 2018 - technologies and concepts should be developed with the participation of German industry.

The publication suggests that the decision to create a new tank was preceded by a report by the German Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst, BND) on Russia's buildup of combat power. In addition, the T-14 tanks on the Armata platform, presented on May 9 at the Victory Parade in Moscow, according to German intelligence, were prototypes, while serial production - two thousand tanks - will begin only in a few years.

Die Welt notes that when the development of the new vehicle is completed, it will be a tank of a very high level.

In June 2016, perhaps one of the first weapons of the future European tank was demonstrated. A sample of a smooth-bore 130-mm gun with a barrel length of 51 calibers was shown by Rheinmetall Weapon and Munition at the Eurosatory-2016 arms exhibition held in Paris.

A gun of this type has been created since 2015 at the company's own expense. The sample on display was completed in May 2016. According to company representatives, testing will begin after the exhibition.

The gun is equipped with an enlarged charging chamber, the inner surface of the barrel is made with a chrome coating, the outer one - with a heat-shielding casing. The muzzle brake on the presented sample is not observed.

For the gun, the use of two types of shots is envisaged: an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile with an elongated tungsten core and a high-explosive fragmentation projectile with a programmable detonation.

According to the manufacturer, the power of the ammunition of the developed gun should exceed the power of their counterparts used in the 120-millimeter Rheinmetall L55 tank gun by 50 percent.

Great Britain has its own development of a promising tank. This machine is also being created in line with general trends - reducing the crew, installing a larger-caliber gun, improving the fire control system, and so on. True, according to available information, the Challenger's successor tank, which is being developed under the Mobile Direct Fire Equipment Requirement program (requirements for a system for firing direct fire on the move), is planned to be equipped with a cannon with electromagnetic projectile acceleration. It is possible that the British will become innovators in this matter, having managed to be the first to put such a weapon on a serial machine.

The rest of the tank building countries either do not yet have their own programs for the development of fundamentally new tanks: the bulk of promising vehicles, whether it be the Turkish Altai, the Indian Arjun or the Japanese Type 10, is a combination of already known technical solutions in a classic layout. China, which has been copying Russian and Western designs for the past decades, will apparently continue to do so in the future. The countries of the next echelon have even less chance of creating their own promising machine.

What are the results?

Speaking about the main trends in world tank building in general, the following main areas can be distinguished:

1. The growth in the mass of combat vehicles has stopped. All promising projects, except for the modernized "Merkav" - special vehicles for special theaters of military operations - have a weight in the range of 50-55 tons.

2. The growth of firepower continues. It is planned to equip promising tanks with heavy guns, and in the future - with their improved versions with electromagnetic acceleration, and so on.

3. Without exception, all promising tanks are planned to be equipped with guns with an automatic loader, which testifies in favor of this main path of development, which the domestic tank building embarked on more than 40 years ago.

4. The main role in improving the combat capabilities of tanks will be played by fire control systems, active protection systems and other additional equipment, with the help of which the combat capabilities of tanks already in service can be significantly increased.

What's cheaper?

It is obvious that the new generation tanks, as well as the "ultimate" options for modernizing modern vehicles, will not be affordable for third world countries, while many of them have impressive stocks of old equipment, primarily the most common Cold War tanks such as the M60 and T- 72. Such a market implies a large number of proposals for the modernization of these tanks, and such proposals appear more and more often.

One of the most recent proposals of this kind is the upgrade option for the M60 Patton tanks from Raytheon, better known as one of the main developers of air defense and missile defense systems. In fact, Raytheon acts as a system integrator of the program, which includes the use of developments from different companies. The key element of the modernization, called The M60A3 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP), is to increase the combat power of the tank by installing a 120 mm M256 smoothbore gun, which should replace the previous 105 mm M68 rifled gun.

“You have hardware from the 1960s and 1970s. The production of many components for it has long been lost, - explains the head of the modernization program Rimas Guzulaitis, - but many countries continue to operate this weapon and need to improve it, eliminate shortcomings, increase accuracy and lethality.

“We are taking the gun from the M1A1,” he continues. “It is much more accurate, much more powerful, yet lighter and allows the use of a wide range of munitions produced by NATO partners.”

As noted in Raytheon, the improvement of the machine is not limited to the new tool. During the modernization, the M60 will receive a new diesel engine, the power of which will increase from 750 to 950 horsepower, a new fire control system with a daytime laser sight and a night thermal sight, an electric turret rotation drive and, of course, increased protection - both additional armor and dynamic protection.

Part of the market is already being mastered by Uralvagonzavod, which is serially upgrading the T-72B of the Russian army into the T-72B3 variant, but other manufacturers are also interested in this business. The former partners of the USSR under the Warsaw Pact offer their options - from Poland to the former Yugoslav republics, as well as the republics of the former USSR.

Improvement is mainly in the same areas: improvement of armor protection - due to additional armor plates in the frontal part of the tank and modern versions of dynamic protection such as "Kontakt-5" or "Relic", modernization of the fire control system, installation of modern sights, in in some cases - remotely controlled weapon modules.

One of the most noteworthy options for improving the T-72 can be called a tank on display by Uralvagonzavod since 2013 in a body kit for urban combat. It differs from the standard vehicle in significantly enhanced armor protection - additional armor on the sides and rear of the turret, the presence of a bulldozer blade for clearing rubble, enhanced armor protection of the anti-aircraft machine gun mount and an improved fire control system. The appearance of this vehicle right now is easily explained by the fighting in Syria, where tanks are actively used as a means of supporting infantry, including in cities. T-72s demonstrate high survivability even in the original version, and modernization will significantly increase the efficiency of these vehicles in urban conditions that are unfavorable for armored vehicles.

The most radical way to modernize the T-72 is to turn it into a machine of a fundamentally different class, a tank support combat vehicle (BMPT). Research in this direction has been carried out since the 1990s. According to some experts, vehicles of this type drastically reduce the need for infantry escort of the tank, taking on most of the functions of destroying targets dangerous for the tank. The key trump cards of the BMPT are an advanced fire control system and the versatility of the combat module.

Various versions of the modernization of old vehicles will inevitably be offered in the future - the price and timing of the development of new generation tanks leave practically no other options for improving the tank fleet for those who are not ready to pay for new vehicles from 5-6 million dollars per unit and more. And even countries that develop and build a new generation of equipment, including Russia with its novelty - the T-14 "Armata" and other machines on this platform, will spend a very long time replacing the main part of the fleet. The result is not difficult to predict: many Cold War tanks will have to see in service a century from the date of the creation of their first version - it is possible that from the day of physical construction.

30 05 2015
10:33

Automatic turret, small crew: The Russian tank "Armata" according to weapons experts is a real revolution. However, much of it is not new at all, but has already been invented for a German tank.

In early May, during a military parade to mark the victory over Nazi Germany in Moscow, Russia showed off its new Armata battle tank for the first time. After analyzing the photographs, Western experts agreed: 30 years ago about The basic concept of the Russian tank was not only developed in the West, but also tested in Germany.

The Russians used the concept of a tank, which in Germany was once seen as a replacement for the modern Leopard 2 tank. Among the Western military, experts and politicians, there is only talk of a “wake-up call”. Research on a new German military tank has already begun, but it could still be a good 15 years before the successor to the Leopard 2 is put on alert.

Recently, the Bundestag Defense Commission reported that by 2018, all major issues related to the future battle tank will be resolved with the involvement of industry experts. Leopard 2 will end its operation around 2030. In total, about 3,300 export versions of the battle tank were produced. The new development should turn into a multi-billion dollar project for the industry.

Currently, one Leopard 2 tank, depending on the configuration and number of vehicles, costs from 9 to 10 million euros. It remains an open question to what extent two large German tank-building concerns will be involved in the project - Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW), currently the authorized manufacturer of the Leopard, as well as the Rheinmetall concern - a supplier of guns, multiple rocket launchers and ammunition .

Industry representatives say that a new German battle tank could have been around for a long time. But the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 stopped what was then a major military project of the Bundeswehr. In addition, back in 1995 in Germany there was development and even industrial competition for the so-called "New Tank Platform" - a program for the "Family of Tanks", which includes projects for a new battle tank and armored personnel carrier, as well as air defense systems.

Revolution in tank building

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Warsaw Pact and the end of the Cold War, the threat from the East was no longer considered. The delay arose only with the model of the new Puma infantry fighting vehicle, designed to replace the outdated Marder model.

In a piquant way, in accordance with the previous plans of the Bundeswehr, the successor to the Leopard-2 was supposed to enter service with the army at the latest in 2015. Instead, Vladimir Putin unveiled a dozen of his new battle tanks, the T-14 for short, a successor model to the T-72 tank from the early 1970s. The Russian side is talking about a miracle tank, and the respected British special edition "Jane's" is talking about a revolution in tank building.

The world-famous latest battle tank is produced by the Russian military concern Uralvagonzavod - not Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) or Rheinmetall from Germany.

The Armata is a wake-up call that the industry fell into in the early 1990s,” says the source, who asked not to be identified. -2". An industry expert notes: "What seems new in Armata is not new at all, all this was invented and made in Germany. Experts say that at one time there was not enough will and money to implement the idea.

Lose in a confrontation? According to experts, as a result of the duel, the Leopard 2 battle tank - pictured during military exercises in Lower Saxony - could give way to a new Russian tank.

The fact is that the Russians stopped the spiral of production of ever heavier tanks. After the Second World War, the weight of steel colossi constantly increased, as maximum protection against large-caliber enemy guns and high penetrating power were demanded. The weight in the combat position of the Leopard 2 has increased from 55 to over 63 tons. The American battle tank "Abrams M 1" and the British tank "Challenger" with each new modification also increase their weight. But more weight means less mobility, makes it difficult to cross bridges and is associated with more difficult conditions of transportation, in particular in air transport.

First uninhabited tower

The Russians have limited the weight. Unlike the "Leopard" with a crew of 4 people, the crew of the T-14 tank consists of three people, and for the first time in the history of modern battle tanks, the tank turret is uninhabited. Projectiles reload automatically. “A small crew capsule, deep inside the tank, provides the best protection,” experts say.

The basic concept - an uninhabited tower and a minimum number of crew members in a compact armored capsule - was tested back in the late 80s in Germany as part of the Panzerkampfwagen 2000 military project. At that time, Krauss-Maffei, later transformed into Krauss, played a leading role in it -Maffei Wegmann, as well as MaK, which is currently part of the Rheinmetall concern... Experts estimate the weight of the new "T -14" at 48 tons, which is significantly less than the weight of the tanks "Leopard 2", "Challenger" or "Abrams".

However, tank expert and science writer Rolf Hilmes, former head of the science department at the Bundeswehr's educational centre, cautions against using the term "wonder tank" for the T-14. In an uninhabited tower, "all functions must be automated." A projectile hitting this area quickly enough leads to "Firepower -Kill" - the loss of firepower - and, thus, the termination of the combat mission by the vehicle.

Manual emergency control, which exists in modern turret tanks, is not possible in the T-14 tank. In addition, the well-protected crew located deep in the tank will need modern tracking systems to monitor the battlefield.

The tank expert also sees technical parallels in the new T-14 model with early German ideas and developments. If politicians wanted to and provided financial resources for the project, then in Germany it would also be possible to develop a new battle tank, “which in terms of its combat qualities would absolutely not be inferior to the T-14,” he says.

Possibly win the fight

Experts in the field of tank building talk about the high degree of protection of the new Russian tank, while the firepower of the 125-millimeter gun is still unknown in detail. "Definitely, there is the possibility of using shells enriched with uranium and having a high penetrating ability," they say. “Thanks to the high degree of protection, the Armata can defeat a Western tank in a duel, because it is more difficult to knock it out,” experts say.

The Jane's agency cites Russian reports that the Armata could later be equipped with a 152mm cannon, which would mean an increase in its firepower. instead of 120 mm.But later the conversion plan was abandoned due to the "retreated threat" and the high cost.

As a consequence, because of the "Armata" Germany must change the previously developed concept of a tank with an uninhabited turret and a small number of crew members - a large order is already anticipated in industrial circles. “We need something new. There is nothing to expect much from a further increase in the combat capability of the Leopard, ”says one of the experts. Others say that "Armata" will not be the reason for the appearance of new battle tanks in the West, but will affect the ways to improve the combat capability of current tank models.

German-French tank?

At the same time, the development of the successor to Leopard 2 has long existed. So in June 2012, an agreement was signed on the development of the "next generation of ground combat support systems" - the German-French system "Main Ground Combat System". In the summer of 2014, the German concern Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and the French tank manufacturer and state concern Nexter announced plans joint work within the framework of a 50/50 company with a turnover of approximately 2 billion euros, a staff of 6,000 people, as well as a holding company in the Netherlands.

After delays and valuation disputes, the merger of these enterprises is expected to be finalized by the end of autumn. Tank building innovations can be easily exported from France, industry experts say. Competitor Rheinmetall, as before, remains to cherish the hope of a German-German alliance with KMW. The solution depends on the policy.

The question of whether a German-French battle tank will actually appear - the successor to the Leopard, is still open. This will show the history of tank building. Thus, it was originally assumed that the first German battle tank Leopard 1 after the Second World War would be built as a result of the joint efforts of France and Italy. But, as the tank expert Hilmes says, at that time they did not reach unity on the issue of a common concept.

In addition, the then Defense Minister Franz Josef Strauss advocated the use of British rather than French guns. And the German-French project of the battle tank 90, which began in the late 80s, remained only on paper. The Boxer transport tank project, which also began as a bilateral project with France, ended without reaching Paris.

Experts agree that the new Russian T-14 battle tank will have a lasting impact on the industry. Russia plans to supply 2,300 copies itself. Export offers contribute to this. Russia is currently rumored to have over 9,000 T-72 battle tanks, 3,500 T-80 U tanks, and approximately 350 T-90 tanks. In addition, there are several thousand old models that are located east of the Urals. "Armata" should replace the old models "T-72" und "T-80 U". For comparison: Defense Minister von der Leyen recently increased the number of Leopold 2 tanks for the Bundeswehr from 225 to 328 vehicles.

In the 80s and early 90s, in the leading tank-producing countries - the USSR, the USA, Germany, France, the development of a promising tank was actively carried out. At the same time, an active search was carried out for solutions on the layout, composition of the crew and the distribution of its tasks. Improving the characteristics of the tank could be achieved by reducing the crew by installing an automatic loader, this decision was made in all promising developments in Western countries. This made it possible to reduce the internal volume of the tank, strengthen the armor without a significant increase in mass.

The development of electronics and automation tools made it possible to go even further in the development of the layout, reducing the crew to two people. Reducing the crew to two people allows solving a number of problematic issues: increasing protection, duplicating the work of the crew, better meeting ergonomic requirements, reducing the weight and dimensions of the tank. At the same time, there are a number of unresolved issues related to crew congestion and unit management.

The choice of tank layout and crew composition was a very topical issue, both in the USSR and in Western countries, and the final point on this issue has not yet been set.

The material considers a number of concepts for the layout of a promising tank in the United States studied in the late 80s and early 90s by the tactical and technological department of the agency for the development of promising projects DARPA and their comparison with some well-known developments carried out in the former. THE USSR.

Tank variant with a crew of 2 and an uninhabited turret

A tank with a crew of two has high mobility, low silhouette. The ratio of the length and width of the hull to the tracks in this version is close to the ideal 1.5: 1, which provides good agility.

The tank is made according to the six-support scheme of the chassis.The height of the turret corresponds to the height of the Abrams tank turret, but its area is reduced by 50% in the front projection and by 40% in the side view. Reservation of the frontal part of the uninhabited tower provides high protection for the crew compartment from the ammunition of attackers from above (if the tower is turned forward), in addition, there are additional anti-fragmentation screens above the crew seats.

The center of mass of the tank is shifted forward (between the 2nd and 3rd rollers) since the bulk of the armor (about 9 tons) is placed in front of the hull. The total predicted weight of the tank is 50.3 tons, which, when installed with an engine with a capacity of 1500 hp. will provide high power density (27 hp/t).

The design of the hatches is implemented in such a way that the crew could leave the tank even with the gun lowered. Hatches have electric and manual drives and are equipped with glass blocks for stowed driving. In the bottom under one of the seats there is an emergency exit hatch, which is used in case of hatch damage and emergency situations. The crew compartment is quite cramped, allocated 70 cm for each crew member in width.

Tank variant with a crew of 2 and an uninhabited turret

Front and side view.

The air intake of the filter-ventilation unit is carried out behind the left hatch of the crew, the FVU unit is located in the bow of the tank in a niche in the lower front part of the hull. Purified conditioned air enters in the area of ​​the crew's feet and then enters the niches of the electronic units.

The total capacity of the fuel system of the tank is 1250 liters, the fuel is partially placed inside the hull in front of the engine, the rest is in the fuel tanks on the fenders in the rear of the hull.

Comparison of the side projection of the M1A1 tank and a promising tank with a crew of 2 people with an uninhabited tower.

Comparison of the frontal projection area of ​​a tank with an electromagnetic gun, a promising tank with a crew of 2 people and an uninhabited turret, and the M1A1 Abrams.

For the first time, developments to create a promising tank with a crew of two were undertaken at the KMDB named after A.A. Morozov in the 70s, the work was a promising tank KMDB E.A. Morozov. The prototype of a promising tank with a crew of 2 people was made by the KMDB.

A project of a promising tank with a crew of 2 people (object 299) close to this ideology was developed in Russia by Spetsmash OJSC in the 90s. At the same time, a front-engine layout was implemented, largely due to the reasons for the use of a gas turbine engine. A running chassis layout was made.

Tank variant with a crew of 3 and an uninhabited turret

The next considered option for the layout of the tank is a more traditional version with a crew of three. When creating this option, American experts offered two solutions:

The first involves placing 3 crew members in a line. With this option, it is possible to save the dimensions of the tank withsix-support scheme of the chassis, the crew is accommodated in fairly comfortable conditions. But at the same time, it is not possible to realize sufficient protection of the onboard part of the crew compartment. Even with a reduction in the width of the space allocated for each crew member from 70 to 60 cm, the opportunities to provide protection during shelling in the side areas are minimal. At the same time, the railway dimensions do not allow increasing the width of the hull.

In the USSR, this option was proposed as part of the development of a promising medium tank by A. A. Morozov in the second half of the 70s.

The second option is to place two crew members in front and a third behind them (placement of one of the crew members in front is not rational to ensure equal reservation).

This option allows you to maintain a sufficient level of protection of the sides of the hull and satisfactory comfort conditions for the crew. Although the conditions are worse than in the first option, because the legs of the third crew member are placed between the two in front. The vacant volume on the sides of the third crew member can be used to accommodate a supply of food, a dry closet, etc.

At the same time, the length of the hull increases by about 80 cm, the mass of the tank increases by 5 tons.The tank is made according to the seven-support scheme of the undercarriage with the estimated mass 55.3 tons.

Tank variant with a crew of 3 and an uninhabited turret

Front and side view.

The ratio of the length and width of the hull along the tracks in this version is 1.7:1. Reservation of the frontal part of the uninhabited tower provides less protection for the crew compartment from the ammunition of attackers from above due to the lengthening of the hull by 80 cm.

The project of the T-95 tank, close to this ideology, was developed at the Russian OAO UKBTM in the 2000s.

A variant of a tank with a crew of 3 people with a classic layout and an automatic loader

In all proposed options with the placement of the crew in front of the hull, there are a number of disadvantages. One of the most significant of them, foreign experts call the lack of the possibility of all-round visual observation by the commander. On tanks with crew accommodation in the hull, the viewing angle with open hatches is no more than 270 degrees.

The layout with the placement of the commander and gunner in the turret and the driver in the hull allows for a circular visual overview of the commander. In addition, placing the gunner in a rotating turret eliminates problems with disorientation, and there are also opportunities to eliminate a number of delays in firing.

This layout is closest to the French tank "Leclerc", during the development of which a number of options for placing the crew in the hull were also considered, as a result, a more traditional option with a low-profile turret was chosen.

The disadvantage of this layout for a promising tank is the large mass of frontal armor, restrictions on providing protection from above, and a large frontal projection area. Another layout disadvantage is the impossibility of using a carousel-type automatic loader due to the requirement for separate accommodation of the crew and ammunition.

When creating this option, two solutions were proposed:

The first involves a divided placement of ammunition, ready-to-use shots are placed in the automatic loader, additional ammunition is placed in an isolated compartment in front of the engine compartment.

The second option involves placing the entire ammunition load in a single volume of an automatic loader located in an isolated compartment behind the turret. This option will require a fairly large and wide tower. This ideology was implemented in a Russian tank, developed by JSC OKBTM in the 90s and called "Black Eagle" (object 640).

Tank variant with a crew of 3, classic layout and automatic loader

Front and side view.

In this layout option, a circular view of the tank commander is implemented while maintaining the mast-lifting devices with observation complexes for the commander and gunner.

In this case, the commander, in order to ensure a circular view, must rise above the level of the tower to the waist. As noted by the theorist of the combat use of tanks R. Simpkin " halfway to heaven"(i.e. very vulnerable to enemy fire). The view is hindered by the roof of the central part of the turret with a rise to provide the required descent angles of the gun.

Implemented the possibility of mutual access from the control compartment to the fighting compartment (with the gun in the forward position). Both crew members in the turret, commander and gunner, can provide all-round visibility by raising their heads above the level of the turret roof.

Due to the larger volume in the hull, it is possible to use armor materials with a lower overall efficiency, as well as a more powerful FVU due to the increased internal volume.

As in other options for the layout of a promising tank, the implementation of the required gun descent angles associated with the structural weakening of the turret remains a problematic issue.

The estimated weight of the tank variant with a manned turret was 67.4 tons.

A variant of a tank with a crew of 3 people, with the placement of the commander in the tower

This layout option provides a good overview for the tank commander, while the ability to use a carousel-type automatic loader in the hull is realized. Like all variants of the presented layouts, it is not without drawbacks. Among them are unsatisfactory conditions for placing the commander, the impact on him of the recoil momentum of the main armament, the need to duplicate the systems of the FVU, PPO, etc.

Tank variant with a crew of 3 people, with an unconventional layout

Front and side view.

In this layout option, the pressure on the ground is increased by 34% compared to the variant of the tank with a crew of 2 people and an uninhabited turret, while the turret is 74 cm wider and 20 cm higher. The estimated mass of this variant is 67.7 tons.

Firepower

When modeling DARPA options for the layout of a promising tank with requirements were set to increase the muzzle energy from 9 MJ for the M256 to 20 MJ and an initial speed of up to 2 km / s.

The mass of the active part of the BPS with the master device is 10 kg, the mass of the core is about 5 kg. The length of the BPS with a ballistic tip and plumage is 750 mm. To achieve the required characteristics, a powder charge weighing 20 kg with a volume of 17 liters is required. The selected caliber of the 135 mm gun required the use of separate loading shots.

The caliber of the main armament used for the analysis of promising developments was chosen on the basis of data available in the United States on the development in the USSR of a tank with weapons of this caliber.

In the USSR, the development of a tank with a crew of 3 people with a 130 mm caliber gun was carried out (the commander and gunner were located to the left of the gun), but later (since 1984) a 152 mm caliber was adopted for a promising tank.

Loading is carried out by a carousel-type automatic loader with the placement of a shot in a container. Container dimensions 850x160x340 mm. The main charge (BPS) is placed in one cell, the projectile with an additional charge - in another. The AZ carousel contains 35 cassettes with separate loading shots.

When modeling various options for the layout of tanks, an automatic loader from the company " Ares Inc. "consisting of a carousel mechanism in the "basket" of the tower. The lifting mechanism raises the container to the dispensing line, after which the projectile is sent, the container is lowered to send the charge, after which it is sent.

These decisions of the automatic loader of a promising tank are similar to those adopted for the automatic loader of a promising tank of OAO UKBTM.

Scheme of an automatic loader with a mechanism for feeding shots. Taking into account the dimensions of the system and the peculiarities of its placement, the possibility of manual duplication of the work of the AZ is not provided.

The automatic loader is replenished with separate loading shots in cassettes in automatic mode through a hatch in the rear of the tower. This is a step forward compared to the manual loading of ammunition, reducing the existing labor intensity of maintenance.

Cannon descent angles -10, elevation +20 deg. To ensure the required angle of descent of the gun, it was proposed to implement a retractable version of the turret roof.

Controlled hydropneumatic suspension by changing the trim of the machine allows you to increase the gun pointing angles in the vertical plane by another -6 / +6 degrees.

Auxiliary armament includes a coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun with 10,000 rounds of ammunition. It was supposed to install an additional 7.62 mm machine gun with independent guidance on one of the mast-lifting devices with an ammunition load of 3400 rounds

fire control system

The fire control system was considered taking into account ensuring a high probability of hitting a target (2 m high) at a distance of 4000 m. For this, the firing error should be no more than 0.2 mrad. The requirements for the possibility of hitting low-flying helicopters require turret guidance drives that provide rotation at a speed of 60 deg / s. It was proposed to install modules with sighting and observation systems on lifting mast devices with circular rotation. Each of the modules includes a thermal imaging, television daytime, laser ranging channel. In addition, it is planned to install acoustic sensors and, in the future, millimeter-wave radars. In addition, an auxiliary sight can be installed on the turret. It was planned to transfer information via fiber-optic channels.

Protection

The estimated dimensions of the reservation were 1300 mm for the upper part of the hull (700 ... 380 for the lower). 1300 mm for the frontal part of the tower and the protection of the embrasure, a barbet was supposed in front of the junction of the hull and the tower, etc. At the same time, the frontal protection of the tower covers the crew compartment from an attack from above.

Required armor thicknesses
plot		tank with a crew in the hull (mm)	tank with a crew in the tower (mm)	Note
crew compartment	Upper body part	1300	1300	Armor with high mass efficiency. (large size, small weight)
	Lower body part	700…380	700…380	Variable thickness, see diagrams.
	Upper bead belt			400 mm - high mass efficiency (small size, large mass), equal to 630 at low E m
	Lower bead belt
	roof			Protection from above is provided by the forehead block of the tower
	Bottom
Tower	Frontal detail	1300	1300
	Board
	Roof
Tower / building. (except crew compartment)	Side screens top.
	Side screens below.
	Stern
	Bottom

Mobility

In the promising projects of the tank, it was supposed to use a compact MTO with a 1500 hp gas turbine engine. MTO was developed by the company under the program Advanced Integrated Propulsion System (AIPS) ), the GTE version was developed by General Electric diesel version - Cummins . The main requirement for the new MTO is to reduce the mass from 6400 (M1A1) to 5,000 kg of volume from 7 to 5.9 m 3. MTO according to the program AIPS was developed for the modernization of the M1A1 Blok tank III and heavy infantry fighting vehicles. Name MTO General Electric created by the program AIPS-

2800

HLF

Hydraulic system

Electronics

Tower components

1500

1500

2000

2000

Fuel

1200

1200

1500

1200

AIPS

5000

5000

5000

5000

Booking weight

25 200

28 800

37 800

38 300

Crew seats

1200

1200

1200

Suspension

9550

10500

12800

12800

Total:

50 340

55 330

67 460

67 700

findings

Based on the analysis of various layout options, it turned out that each has both advantages and disadvantages. The choice of one or another version of the tank ideology depends on the planned features of its use. American developers (DARPA) presented an overview of possible layouts, showing the advantages and disadvantages of each of them.

At the same time, it is noted that a tank with a crew of two people has the best indicators in terms of mobility, visibility, and cost.

At the same time, studies on the development of a tank with a crew of two people conducted in the 80s in the USSR did not show solutions that provide tank control for units with such a crew. If the gunner performs the functions of commander of a tank unit from a platoon to a battalion, his tank will be unable to fire. An analysis of the workload of the tank crew also testified in favor of a crew of three.

At the same time, a crew of three provides the ability to simultaneously fire, search for targets, communicate and control the battle of a tank unit. An advantage in this case is the possibility of simultaneous firing from additional weapons - a remote-controlled machine gun or a small-caliber gun.

Sources

1. The problem of reducing the number of crew of the main tank. Yu. M. Apukhtin, A. I. Mazurenko, E. A. Morozov, P. I. Nazarenko. Herald armored vehicles ". No. 6 for 1980

2. An Exploration of Integrated Ground Weapons Concepts for Armor/Anti-Armor Missions. Randall Steeb, Keith Brendley, Dan Norton, John Bondanella, Richard Salter, Teriell G. Covington.RAND, NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 1991.

3. THE LAST SURGE OF THE SOVIET TANK BUILDERS (diary of a participant in the development of the Boxer tank). Yuri Apukhtin. Kharkiv - 2009

4. R. E. Simpkin, Human Factors in Mechanized Warfare, Brassey's, New York, 1984.

In the 80s - early 90s in the leading tank-producing countries - the USSR, the USA, Germany, France, the development of a promising tank was actively carried out. At the same time, an active search was carried out for solutions on the layout, composition of the crew and the distribution of its tasks. Improving the characteristics of the tank could be achieved by reducing the crew by installing an automatic loader, this decision was made in all promising developments in Western countries. This made it possible to reduce the internal volume of the tank, strengthen the armor without a significant increase in mass.

The development of electronics and automation tools made it possible to go even further in the development of the layout, reducing the crew to two people. Reducing the crew to two people allows solving a number of problematic issues: increasing protection, duplicating the work of the crew, better meeting ergonomic requirements, reducing the weight and dimensions of the tank. At the same time, there are a number of unresolved issues related to crew congestion and unit management.

The choice of tank layout and crew composition was a very topical issue, both in the USSR and in Western countries, and the final point on this issue has not yet been set.

The material considers a number of concepts for the layout of a promising tank in the United States studied in the late 80s and early 90s by the tactical and technological department of the agency for the development of promising projects DARPA and their comparison with some well-known developments carried out in the former. THE USSR.

Tank variant with a crew of 2 and an uninhabited turret
A tank with a crew of two has high mobility, low silhouette. The ratio of the length and width of the hull along the tracks in this variant is close to the ideal 1.5:1, which ensures good agility.

The tank is made according to the six-support scheme of the chassis. The height of the turret corresponds to the height of the Abrams tank turret, but its area is reduced by 50% in the front projection and by 40% in the side view. Reservation of the frontal part of the uninhabited tower provides high protection for the crew compartment from ammunition attacking from above (if the tower is turned forward), in addition, there are additional anti-fragmentation screens above the crew seats.

The center of mass of the tank is shifted forward (between the 2nd and 3rd rollers), since the bulk of the armor (about 9 tons) is placed in front of the hull. The total predicted weight of the tank is 50.3 tons, which, when installed with an engine with a capacity of 1500 hp. will provide high power density (27 hp/t).

The design of the hatches is implemented in such a way that the crew could leave the tank even with the gun lowered. Hatches have electric and manual drives and are equipped with glass blocks for stowed driving. In the bottom under one of the seats there is an emergency exit hatch, which is used in case of hatch damage and emergency situations. The crew compartment is quite cramped, allocated 70 cm for each crew member in width.

The air intake of the filter-ventilation unit is carried out behind the left hatch of the crew, the FVU unit is located in the bow of the tank in a niche in the lower front part of the hull. Purified conditioned air enters in the area of ​​the crew's feet and then enters the niches of the electronic units.

The total capacity of the fuel system of the tank is 1250 liters, the fuel is partially placed inside the hull in front of the engine, the rest is in the fuel tanks on the fenders in the rear of the hull.

Comparison of the side projection of the M1A1 tank and a promising tank with a crew of 2 people with an uninhabited tower.

Comparison of the area of ​​the frontal projection of a tank with an electromagnetic gun, a promising tank with a crew of 2 people and an uninhabited tower and M1A1 "Abrams".

For the first time, developments to create a promising tank with a crew of two were undertaken at the KMDB named after A.A. Morozov in the 70s, the work was continued by E.A. Morozov. The prototype of a promising tank with a crew of 2 people was made by the KMDB.

A project of a promising tank with a crew of 2 people, close to this ideology, was developed in Russia by Spetsmash OJSC in the 90s. At the same time, a front-engine layout was implemented, largely due to the reasons for the use of a gas turbine engine. A running chassis layout was made.

Tank variant with a crew of 3 and an uninhabited turret
The next considered option for the layout of the tank is a more traditional version with a crew of three. When creating this option, American experts offered two solutions:

The first involves placing 3 crew members in a line. With this option, it is possible to maintain the dimensions of the tank with a six-support undercarriage scheme, the crew is accommodated in fairly comfortable conditions. But at the same time, it is not possible to realize sufficient protection of the onboard part of the crew compartment. Even with a reduction in the width of the space allocated for each crew member from 70 to 60 cm, the opportunities to provide protection during shelling in the side areas are minimal. At the same time, the railway dimensions do not allow increasing the width of the hull.

In the USSR, this option was proposed as part of the development of a promising medium tank by A. A. Morozov in the second half of the 70s.

The second option is to place two crew members in front and a third behind them (placement of one of the crew members in front is not rational to ensure equal reservation).

This option allows you to maintain a sufficient level of protection of the sides of the hull and satisfactory comfort conditions for the crew. Although the conditions are worse than in the first option, because the legs of the third crew member are placed between the two in front. The vacant volume on the sides of the third crew member can be used to accommodate a supply of food, a dry closet, etc.

At the same time, the length of the hull increases by about 80 cm, the mass of the tank increases by 5 tons. The tank is made according to the seven-support scheme of the chassis with an estimated mass of 55.3 tons.

The ratio of the length and width of the hull along the tracks in this version is 1.7:1. Reservation of the frontal part of the uninhabited tower provides less protection for the crew compartment from the ammunition of attackers from above due to the lengthening of the hull by 80 cm.

The project of the T-95 tank, close to this ideology, was developed at the Russian OAO UKBTM in the 2000s.

A variant of a tank with a crew of 3 people with a classic layout and an automatic loader
In all proposed options with the placement of the crew in front of the hull, there are a number of disadvantages. One of the most significant of them, foreign experts call the lack of the possibility of all-round visual observation by the commander. On tanks with crew accommodation in the hull, the viewing angle with open hatches is no more than 270 degrees.

The layout with the placement of the commander and gunner in the turret and the driver in the hull allows for a circular visual overview of the commander. In addition, placing the gunner in a rotating turret eliminates disorientation problems, and there are also opportunities to eliminate a number of delays in firing.

This layout is closest to the French Leclerc tank, during the development of which a number of options for placing the crew in the hull were also considered, as a result, a more traditional version with a low-profile turret was chosen.

The disadvantage of this layout for a promising tank is the large mass of frontal armor, restrictions on providing protection from above, and a large frontal projection area. Another layout disadvantage is the impossibility of using a carousel-type automatic loader due to the requirement for separate accommodation of the crew and ammunition.

When creating this option, two solutions were proposed:

The first involves a divided placement of ammunition, ready-to-use shots are placed in the automatic loader, additional ammunition is placed in an isolated compartment in front of the engine compartment.

The second option involves placing the entire ammunition load in a single volume of an automatic loader located in an isolated compartment behind the turret. This option will require a fairly large and wide tower. This ideology was implemented in a Russian tank developed by JSC OKBTM in the 90s and called the Black Eagle (object 640).

In this layout option, a circular view of the tank commander is implemented while maintaining the mast-lifting devices with observation complexes for the commander and gunner.

In this case, the commander, in order to ensure a circular view, must rise above the level of the tower to the waist. As noted by the theorist of the combat use of tanks R. Simpkin, the tank is "halfway to heaven" (i.e. very vulnerable to enemy fire). The view is hindered by the roof of the central part of the turret with a rise to provide the required descent angles of the gun.

Implemented the possibility of mutual access from the control compartment to the fighting compartment (with the gun in the forward position). Both crew members in the turret, commander and gunner, can provide all-round visibility by raising their heads above the level of the turret roof.

Due to the larger volume in the hull, it is possible to use armor materials with a lower overall efficiency, as well as a more powerful FVU due to the increased internal volume.

As in other options for the layout of a promising tank, the implementation of the required descent angles of the gun associated with the structural weakening of the turret remains a problematic issue.

The estimated weight of the tank variant with a manned turret was 67.4 tons.

A variant of a tank with a crew of 3 people, with the placement of the commander in the tower
This layout option provides a good overview for the tank commander, while the ability to use a carousel-type automatic loader in the hull is realized. Like all variants of the presented layouts, it is not without drawbacks. Among them are the unsatisfactory conditions for placing the commander, the impact on him of the recoil impulse of the main armament, the need to duplicate the systems of the FVU, PPO, etc.

In this layout option, the pressure on the ground is increased by 34% compared to the variant of the tank with a crew of 2 people and an uninhabited turret, while the turret is 74 cm wider and 20 cm higher. The estimated mass of this variant is 67.7 tons.

Firepower
When modeling DARPA options for the layout of a promising tank with, the requirements were set to increase the muzzle energy from 9 MJ for the M256 to 20 MJ and an initial speed of up to 2 km / s.

The mass of the active part of the BPS with the master device is 10 kg, the mass of the core is about 5 kg. The length of the BPS with a ballistic tip and plumage is 750 mm. To achieve the required characteristics, a powder charge weighing 20 kg with a volume of 17 liters is required. The selected caliber of the 135 mm gun required the use of separate loading shots.

The caliber of the main armament used for the analysis of promising developments was chosen on the basis of data available in the United States on the development in the USSR of a tank with weapons of this caliber.

In the USSR, the development of a tank with a crew of 3 people with a remote 130 mm cannon was really carried out (the commander and gunner were located to the left of the cannon), but subsequently (since 1984) a 152 mm caliber was adopted for a promising tank.

Loading is carried out by a carousel-type automatic loader with the placement of a shot in a container. Container dimensions 850x160x340 mm. The main charge (BPS) is placed in one cell, the projectile with an additional charge is placed in another. The AZ carousel contains 35 cassettes with separate loading shots.

When modeling various options for the layout of tanks, an automatic loader from Ares inc was chosen, consisting of a carousel mechanism in the "basket" of the turret. The lifting mechanism raises the container to the firing line, after which the projectile is sent, the container is lowered to send the charge, after which it is sent.

These decisions of the automatic loader of a promising tank are similar to those adopted for the automatic loader of a promising tank of OAO UKBTM.

Scheme of an automatic loader with a mechanism for feeding shots. Taking into account the dimensions of the system and the peculiarities of its placement, the possibility of manual duplication of the work of the AZ is not provided.

The automatic loader is replenished with separate loading shots in cassettes in automatic mode through a hatch in the rear of the tower. This is a step forward compared to the manual loading of ammunition, reducing the existing labor intensity of maintenance.

Cannon descent angles -10, elevation +20 deg. To ensure the required angle of descent of the gun, it was proposed to implement a retractable version of the turret roof.

Controlled hydropneumatic suspension by changing the trim of the machine allows you to increase the gun pointing angles in the vertical plane by another -6 / +6 degrees.

Auxiliary armament includes a coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun with 10,000 rounds of ammunition. It was supposed to install an additional 7.62 mm machine gun with independent guidance on one of the mast-lifting devices with an ammunition load of 3400 rounds

fire control system
The fire control system was considered taking into account ensuring a high probability of hitting a target (2 m high) at a distance of 4000 m. For this, the firing error should be no more than 0.2 mrad. The requirements for the possibility of defeating low-flying helicopters require turret guidance drives that provide rotation at a speed of 60 deg / s. It was proposed to install modules with sighting and observation systems on lifting mast devices with circular rotation. Each of the modules includes a thermal imaging, television daytime, laser ranging channel. In addition, it is planned to install acoustic sensors and, in the future, millimeter-wave radars. In addition, an auxiliary sight can be installed on the turret. It was planned to transfer information via fiber-optic channels.

Protection
The estimated dimensions of the reservation were 1300 mm for the upper part of the hull (700 ... 380 for the lower). 1300 mm for the frontal part of the tower and the protection of the embrasure, a barbet was supposed in front of the junction of the hull and the tower, etc. At the same time, the frontal protection of the tower covers the crew compartment from an attack from above.

Mobility
In the promising projects of the tank, it was supposed to use a compact MTO with a 1500 hp gas turbine engine. The MTO was developed by the company under the Advanced Integrated Propulsion System (AIPS) program, the GTE version was developed by the General Electric company with a diesel engine - Cummins. The main requirement for the new MTO is to reduce the mass from 6400 (M1A1) to 5,000 kg of volume from 7 to 5.9 m3. MTO under the AIPS program was developed for the modernization of the M1A1 Block III tank and heavy infantry fighting vehicles. The name of the MTO General Electric, created under the AIPS program - GTE LV-100.

findings
Based on the analysis of various layout options, it turned out that each has both advantages and disadvantages. The choice of one or another version of the tank ideology depends on the planned features of its use. American developers (DARPA) presented an overview of possible layouts, showing the advantages and disadvantages of each of them.

At the same time, it is noted that a tank with a crew of two people has the best indicators in terms of mobility, visibility, and cost.
At the same time, studies on the development of a tank with a crew of two people conducted in the 80s in the USSR did not show solutions that provide tank control for units with such a crew. If the gunner performs the functions of commander of a tank unit from a platoon to a battalion, his tank will be unable to fire. An analysis of the workload of the tank crew also testified in favor of a crew of three.

At the same time, a crew of three provides the ability to simultaneously fire, search for targets, communicate and control the battle of a tank unit. An advantage in this case is the possibility of simultaneous firing from additional weapons - a remote-controlled machine gun or a small-caliber gun.

Sources
1. The problem of reducing the number of crew of the main tank. Yu. M. Apukhtin, A. I. Mazurenko, E. A. Morozov, P. I. Nazarenko. Bulletin of armored vehicles ". No. 6 for 1980
2. An Exploration of Integrated Ground Weapons Concepts for Armor/Anti-Armor Missions. Randall Steeb, Keith Brendley, Dan Norton, John Bondanella, Richard Salter, Teriell G. Covington. RAND, NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 1991.
3. THE LAST SURGE OF THE SOVIET TANK BUILDERS (diary of a participant in the development of the Boxer tank). Yuri Apukhtin. Kharkiv - 2009 http://btvt.narod.ru/boxer/bokser_0.htm
4. R. E. Simpkin, Human Factors in Mechanized Warfare, Brassey's, New York, 1984.