On August 31, domestic tank building celebrated its 90th anniversary. On this day in 1920, the first serial tank, assembled by the hands of the Nizhny Novgorod workers, emerged from the gates of the Sormovo plant and received the name "Fighter for freedom comrade. Lenin ". In fact, it was a copy of the French Renault FT-17 tank, with only a few improvements. It so happened that the domestic tank building originated from foreign models. It should be noted that the first projects and prototypes of armored vehicles, which had not yet received the name "tanks", were created in Russia. Then the tsarist government and the leadership of the military department considered Mendeleev's project, experimental machines of Lebedinsky and Porokhovshchikov's designs, unpromising. The First World War proved the erroneousness of such decisions.
BACKGROUND
Just 4 years after the release of the first Russian-assembled tank, in 1924, the country began designing entirely domestic tanks.
There were MS-1, T-12 and T-24. The foreign experience of tank building was also thoroughly studied. Individual samples of tanks were purchased in the West, namely individual ones, in order to study their design and use in the future the advanced technical solutions available in them, mastered their production at home. At the same time, the troops were honing the methods of using tanks in various battle conditions, and improving the skill of tankers. Tank schools and colleges and a mechanization academy (later the Military Academy of Armored Forces) were created.
And with the birth of the legendary T-34 and KV, which became symbols of victory in World War II, our country became a recognized world leader in tank building, a trendsetter of its kind. Now it was not us, but our potential adversaries who copied our technical innovations, perfectly realizing from the experience of the Second World War that tanks became crucial on the battlefield, and especially with the appearance of nuclear weapons in arsenals.
And the Soviet designers of combat vehicles continued to amaze more and more new designs of their offspring. The revolutionary T-64, multi-axle wheeled amphibious armored personnel carriers and a new class of armored vehicles - infantry fighting vehicles for decades have determined the world trends in the development of armored vehicles. The experience of the national school of tank building has become a world classics.
And if someone continues to believe that the legendary T-34, recognized (primarily by foreign experts) as the best tank of the Second World War, is a continuation of the Christie's tank, then it should be disappointing - this is not at all the case. American engineer Christie handed over to Soviet engineers only the documentation for the wheeled-tracked chassis, on the basis of which the BT-2 tank was created in the 1930s. In other words, who does not quite understand, this means that when creating the BT-2 tank, elements of the chassis of the Christie tank were used, and the power plant, transmission, tower and other components and assemblies were created by our engineers. With the advent of the BT-7 tank, we can say that only the external similarity of the chassis and the general principle of its design remained between it and the Christie tank. On the T-34, from the Christie's chassis, only the principle of engagement of the drive wheel with the tracks was used - through the comb of the track.
It was in the West and overseas that our technical solutions and layout diagrams were copied. And even the famous Israeli Merkava, hastily called by some journalists a tank of a unique layout, was created on the basis of the project of the T-44 tank by Alexander Morozov in the early 40s and the experimental tank "Object 416", created by the same Morozov and his design bureau in the early 50s. The creator of the Israeli tank, General Tal, scrupulously studied the Soviet experience in tank building.
This is the first time in our country that smooth-bore guns, combined multilayer armor, automatic loading systems, gas turbine power plants, anti-nuclear protection systems, underwater driving, dynamic, active protection and optoelectronic suppression, and much more were used on tanks. It was in our country that the first automated combat and fire control systems were created and tested (yes, yes, with us!), Telecontrolled tanks capable of fighting without crews inside. At that time, the West was still just developing the ideology of building such systems.
Unfortunately, much of what was created and tested a decade ago, not all were adopted by us: partly due to the fact that there was no point because of the strong lag of potential opponents in these areas, partly due to the stupidity of individual leaders and military leaders who then also met …
… AND TODAY
Currently, in the Russian army, the share of new and deeply modernized tanks (BMP, BTR, BMD) is several percent of the total number of combat vehicles. The T-90A main tanks are considered the newest (main battle tank - in Western terminology, since in English the word "tank" is more used in the meaning of a tank or a tank. In our country "tank" is a combat vehicle, therefore it cannot whether a tank is combat or not. It can be combat-ready or faulty), infantry fighting vehicles BMP-3, wheeled armored personnel carriers BTR-80A, airborne combat vehicles BMD-4. Unfortunately, the number of new equipment in the troops is measured in several hundred units, and some samples - in dozens. The annual production of new vehicles for the army, such as, for example, T-90A and BMP-3, is determined by 50 vehicles. Most of the combat vehicles in service with the Russian army are T-72 tanks (modifications A, AB and B), T-80 (modifications B, BV, UD and U), T-62, infantry fighting vehicles BMP-1P and BMP-2, BMD-2 and BMD-3 airborne combat vehicles, BTR-80 and BRDM-2 wheeled armored personnel carriers, MT-LB tracked armored personnel carriers. At storage bases, you can also find older models of armored vehicles, such as T-55, T-54, PT-76B and even T-34-85.
Now there is an opinion that the domestic tank building is hopelessly lagging behind, the enterprises of the tank industry are in complete decline and cannot master the latest technologies, and design bureaus are not able to create combat vehicles that meet modern requirements and are able to withstand the equipment in service with NATO countries, and not only. I must admit that this is not entirely true.
If we compare the main indicators of the combat effectiveness of the T-90A and the main tanks of the leading capitalist countries, then we can confidently note that the Russian tank and the Leopard 2A6, M1A2 Abrams, Leclerc, Challenger 2 are all at about the same level. And although Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin once at a round table with journalists noted that the T-90 is a modernization of the T-34, so this "modernization of the T-34" in most parameters is not yet inferior to the best foreign models, and in some and surpasses them. However, in fact, the general was right. Of course, any new tank is a continuation and evolution of those vehicles that were once created. The same can be said about any other types of weapons, for example, the Topol-M PGRK is the modernization of the R-1 rocket, the MiG-35 aircraft is the modernization of the MiG-1, etc.
As already noted, Russian tanks have superiority in some parameters, namely, in terms of firepower and protection. With approximately equal indicators of the power of the action of kinetic and cumulative armor-piercing shells, Russian vehicles are equipped with a complex of guided weapons, which makes it possible with a high probability to hit enemy armored vehicles at ranges of up to 5 km from the first shot from a standstill and on the move. This range of effective fire is not yet available for foreign tanks. Moreover, the composition of the tank ammunition of Russian tanks can now include shots with guided missiles with a high-explosive (thermobaric) warhead. This ensures effective engagement of such targets as long-term firing structures, firing points, command posts with a minimum consumption of ammunition and in the absence of the impact of the enemy's main anti-tank weapons. The presence of an automatic loader allows Russian tanks to fire from a cannon with a constant rate of fire of 8 rounds per minute. A loader will never provide this rate of fire. It's like competing in climbing stairs with an elevator - a person can still reach the 2nd floor along with the elevator, but the elevator will arrive to the 4th floor much faster. I think there is no need to explain that in modern combat every second is precious, which can cost the life of the crew.
Some who call themselves "experts" believe that the Abrams, Leopards, Leclercs and Challengers of the latest models have better fire control systems (FMS) than our cars, because they include modern computers and night vision systems, and therefore, have the best indicators of firing accuracy. But this is also not the case.
The role of a computer in a tank's LMS is extremely simple - to calculate the initial data for firing a shot (elevation and lead angles), which can be done by a conventional calculator, and generate signals corresponding to them for transmission to the gun and turret guidance systems. The role of the on-board computer increases with the presence of a target tracking system in the OMS. I must assure you that the domestic on-board computers of tanks can cope with all these tasks. In addition, on-board computers on modern Russian vehicles also provide remote detonation of fragmentation ammunition along the flight path at a given point.
New Russian tanks, as well as modern foreign ones, are equipped with thermal imaging sighting systems that provide the ability to detect targets and conduct aimed fire in conditions of limited visibility (fog, dust, smoke) and at night. Currently, T-90A tanks are also equipped with thermal imaging systems. The OMS of the Russian tank includes a Belarusian-made Essa thermal imaging sight (Peleng OJSC). This sight uses a matrix manufactured by the French company Thales. It must be understood that a thermal imaging sight is not only a thermal imaging camera, the basis of which is the very matrix, but also optics and software that forms an image on the screen. Since the Belarusian enterprise has long been engaged in the production of lenses for space reconnaissance equipment, and domestic programmers are famous in the world for their ability to create unique software, then the complexes on Russian tanks surpass foreign ones in their characteristics. But for some reason, some of our "experts" do not know about it.
They also believe that NATO tanks have better protection and survivability. This is a deep misconception. Over the past decades, tank developers in the West have tried to bring their vehicles to a level of protection corresponding to Soviet and Russian-made tanks. At the same time, they were forced to "bare" the sides and stern. As a result, this led to the fact that during Operation Iraqi Freedom, American "Abrams" were hit by the fire of the 30-mm cannons of the Iraqi BMP-2 and the so-called "friendly fire" of the 25-mm automatic cannons of the American BMP "Bradley". There was also a case when the "Abrams" burned down from being hit by a 12.7 mm (!) Bullet from a DShK machine gun.
As for the survivability of machines, there are also no advantages to Western-made machines. Our tanks have a lower silhouette, which means they are less visible on the battlefield and less likely to hit when firing at them. Experts say that Western vehicles have separate ammunition from the crew. This is true, but not entirely. Yes, in Western vehicles, part (!) Of the ammunition is located in the turret trap, separated from the fighting compartment by an armored partition. But all the same, 8-18 rounds with partially burnt casings are kept together with the crew. To turn a tank into irrecoverable losses, it is enough to ignite one such charge inside it.
On domestic machines, dynamic protection (DZ) is used, and for a long time. On new machines, which we now have the T-90A, a new generation DZ is installed, capable of holding even tandem cumulative ammunition. In the West, DZ began to appear on some machines only in the last decade after generalizing the sad experience of companies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And one more point about the protection of tanks. In Russia, an optical-electronic suppression complex is being installed on new tanks. This complex allows you to blind the enemy and escape from the fire, as well as to divert an anti-tank guided missile launched by the enemy aside. For tanks, we also have developed a set of reducing the visibility "Cape". It reduces the likelihood of detecting a tank by several times both in the usual visible range and in the ranges of operation of radar and infrared reconnaissance and guidance systems. In other words, the Cape transforms the much-hyped UAVs and other precision weapon detectors, so much touted by the West in recent years, into conventional aircraft models and festive Chinese fireworks. The cost of one such set does not exceed $ 2,000, and a rocket launched at a tank in the "Cape" and flying off into the white light costs an order of magnitude higher. But again, they are in no hurry to buy such kits from us for the ground forces.
Yes, on-board information and control systems (BIUS) began to appear on NATO combat vehicles. The thing is great, but only when it works. So far, at present, in the event of a war with a more or less technically equipped enemy, the whole meaning of the presence of such a system is lost due to the vulnerability of data transmission channels. In our country, such systems were created a long time ago, but did not take root - both because of vulnerability, and because of the complexity of development and operation. Over time, when solving a number of problems, such systems will gain the right to exist.
At this year's Eurosatory-2010 Paris arms exhibition, Germany presented two samples of the updated Leopard 2A - Leopard-2A7 + and MBT Revolution. It looked catchy and exciting. But with a more thorough acquaintance with the presented samples, experts came to the conclusion that there is nothing revolutionary in them. There is nothing there like it was at the time in the T-64 or more recently in the "object 195".
The implementation of the developed modernization programs for the existing tank fleet could restore Russia's former tank power in a short time.
Now the country has adopted the modernized T-72BA tank. The program for upgrading the T-72 to this level provides for the installation of a new, more accurate and powerful 125-mm 2A46M5 cannon, a new chassis and a more powerful engine, and an improvement in the control system and remote control system. A more advanced modernization program for the T-72 tank, known as the Slingshot, was not accepted for service for one banal reason - the Sosna-U thermal imaging sighting system should be installed in the upgraded vehicle, and in it foreign components - a French matrix. For some reason, the T-90A can be used, but not on the modernized T-72. The T-72 "Slingshot" in its characteristics is in no way inferior to the T-90A, and in some respects it even has an advantage.
Indeed, the attitude of the leadership of the Ministry of Defense to equipping the Russian army with armored vehicles and the development of the domestic tank industry, to put it mildly, is surprising and not entirely clear. It considers the domestic weapons and military equipment in our arsenal to be useless and outdated. At the same time, a number of promising R&D projects that have already been worked out are being closed. The work on "object 195", the failed T-95, was also closed.
This main tank has practically passed state tests. In terms of the main combat indicators - in terms of firepower, protection and mobility - the vehicle significantly surpasses all available and promising models of Western tanks in service. This is truly a 21st century tank. This is a truly revolutionary machine, and not a declaration that the Germans rolled out at the Eurosatory-2010 exhibition under the name MBT Revolution, which is another modernization of the Leopard 2 tank, no more, no less. True, in order to understand this, you need to understand at least a little about armored vehicles, since Western colleagues in advertising "ate the dog" and can calmly convince the layman that only they have the best.
"Object 195" was not put into service in the late 90s of the last century because it had certain flaws, and there was no point - there were no worthy opponents for it, and even now it seems not. The vehicle has a completely new layout that ensures high survivability of the vehicle and safety for the crew, powerful weapons, modern control systems and bios. Even in terms of ergonomics, the "Object 195" has gone far from Western competitors. It was planned to adopt this newest machine at the end of this year, but the minister decided otherwise. Ten years of work, billions of people's money - "down the drain."
Maybe the leadership of the Ministry of Defense considered "Object 195" not quite perfect? Well, then let him issue a new technical task (TOR) and allocate appropriate funding. But this is not happening. And who will now be able to competently form a new TK if the majority of military scientific organizations are closed? Including the Military Scientific Committee of the Main Armored Directorate (GABTU) of the RF Ministry of Defense.
Industry and designers have experience. New powerful tank guns and ammunition for them have been created, there are also sighting systems. There is armor, including dynamic protection with a new principle of action. There is also a desire to do something new among designers and tank builders. There is only one thing - understanding whether this will be in demand by our Ministry of Defense.
One of the directors of the metallurgical plant said that there is a technology for the production of new armored steel, which, if not superior to the best imported samples, then, in any case, is in no way inferior. But in order to supply such steel to tank builders, it is necessary to re-equip production. This requires funds, they are, and their company is ready to invest in the re-equipment of production, but on one condition. The condition is simple - the enterprise needs guarantees that within, for example, five years, such armor steel will be purchased from it in such and such volumes. But no one can and does not want to give such a guarantee, since no one knows what will come up in our defense department tomorrow. And the Minister of Defense has publicly announced that we will purchase armor from Germany. Not bad if she really is better. But in fact, this German armor is superior in strength to the domestic serial one at all. If, with equal durability of German armor, a thickness of 1 cm is required, then with the same durability, an armored part from serial Russian armor will require 1.02 cm. The gain is only 2%! But the problem with German armor is different - in order to cook hulls and parts from it, you need new welding equipment, master new welding technologies - and this is money and time again.
If you believe the advertising materials, then the gunpowder in imported ammunition has better characteristics than in ours, and provides high projectile speeds and better armor penetration. But few people thought about the fact that certain requirements do not allow our powder makers to achieve the same quality of powder as in the West, for example, the operating temperature range from -50єC to + 50єC. For Western-made ammunition, this range is -30єC to + 45єC. After finding these ammunition in lower temperatures, it is dangerous to shoot with them, the gunpowder, instead of burning, can explode like a blasting explosive. Such incidents took place during the Great Patriotic War with American ammunition.
So our chemists have to conjure and reduce the characteristics of propellants for the sake of reliability and safety. Free cheese - only in a mousetrap.
UNFUNNY PERSPECTIVES
We still have chances to become the leaders in tank building, but they must be used. But so far we are destroying even what is.
In Russia, a new type of armored vehicle was created and fully passed state tests - a tank support combat vehicle - BMPT. The machine was created on the basis of a deep study of the experience of the war in Afghanistan, and later in Chechnya. From day to day they waited for the order to accept it into service. Such an order did not take place. The reason is that there was no regular place for the BMPT in the tank structures of the "army of a new look", and they did not decide where to take two additional crew members, and the staff of the units cannot be increased. And what prevents the introduction of an additional company - the BMPT company - into the tank battalion of the new brigade? By the way, such a company could already be formed by the end of this year, Uralvagonzavod was ready to make 10 BMPTs by this time. Alas, in our country the staff of the central apparatus of the Ministry of Defense is only increasing. Now there was also an explanation for the “resignation” of the BMPT: “The tank is already self-sufficient, it does not need support. Why bother to create such a machine? " The experience paid for by the lives of our tankers in Afghanistan and in Chechnya did not teach anyone anything. Again decades of labor and billions of people's money down the drain. But Western experts at exhibitions tried to get all possible information about the new car, climbed it up and down. We must assume that a car of this class will soon appear in the West, and we will again copy the "experience" of the West.
In terms of combat vehicles such as BMP and BMD - Russian BMP-3 and BMD-4 still retain the world leadership in these classes of vehicles. Moreover, vehicles of the BMD class exist only in China.
Even Western experts agree that the BMP-3 is the best vehicle in its class. Many of them respectfully refer to the BMP-2. “Sir, we really respect your BMPs,” Her Majesty's sergeant, who had returned from Iraq, told me at the DSEi in London. But all at the same round table, Vladimir Popovkin said that our BMPs and armored personnel carriers are just coffins. One of the results of this statement was that the contract for the supply of BMP-3 to Greece in the amount of $ 1.5 billion was broken. The Greeks refused to buy combat vehicles for their army, which the manufacturing country considers bad.
As with tanks, our country has developed programs for the deep modernization of BMP-2 and BMP-3 - "Berezhok" and Karkas-2 ". The implementation of these programs makes it possible, at relatively low financial costs, to increase the combat effectiveness of domestic infantry fighting vehicles at times! But, alas, neither the BMP-2M nor the BMP-3M were adopted for service.
In the class of armored personnel carriers, the domestic BTR-80, despite its sufficient age, continues to be the most belligerent and demanded armored personnel carrier in the world and is popular with the military of many countries of the world, including the NATO armies. But in our defense department, this car is considered a "coffin", since in "hot spots" our soldiers ride on armored personnel carriers from above because of low mine protection. NATO soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq ride their armored personnel carriers inside a vehicle. But this does not happen at all because their mine protection is superior to the BTR-80, as some believe. Everything is much more prosaic: in NATO countries, a soldier (or, God forbid, his family) will not receive insurance payments if he is injured or he dies if this happens when he is not inside an armored vehicle. So they all sit inside the "Strykers" - the American counterparts of our BTR-80.
The BTR-80 is a vehicle of considerable age, so the time has come to increase the combat effectiveness of the armored personnel carrier. The designers have created the BTR-90 "Rostok". The car was brought to mind for a long time, taking into account more and more new requirements, then it passed state tests and in 2008 was put into service by order of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. Moreover, the creators of the machine have already made its modernized version. The combat effectiveness of the armored personnel carrier has doubled! And that's all. The "sprout" has dried up. The Ministry of Defense leadership refused to buy the armored personnel carrier, which was put into service, and even more so, the updated armored personnel carrier, for one reason - someone did not like the fact that this armored personnel carrier had two side exits for the landing. In the West, there is only one everywhere, and that one is stern. It doesn't matter that it is worse from the point of view of combat use. It is necessary to do what is there. Once they ask, the designers will do it, but it will take time and money, and the soldiers will continue to fight in old cars and still "on horseback".
After watching TV reports from foreign local wars, our commanders decided to put part of the army on armored jeeps. The idea itself is not bad, especially since in our country, at the request of the UAE military, such a jeep was created - the GAZ-2330 "Tiger". The car turned out to be successful, the special forces from the Ministry of Internal Affairs were the first in Russia to appreciate it. The military has developed a technical specification for the military "Tiger". Unlike the police, our military considered that the 5th class of protection for such a car is a lot, they ordered a GAZ-233014 "Tiger" with the 3rd class of protection and accepted it for supply in 2007. Since in those days "Tigers" were produced only with an imported engine, the "Tiger" could not be accepted for supply for the entire army. We limited ourselves only to divisions of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. The spetsnaz liked the car, they have repeatedly tested it in combat conditions, including during the August 2008 events in South Ossetia.
But then, like a bolt from the blue, a message in the Kommersant newspaper about the acceptance of an Italian-made Iveco LMV M65 machine for supply to the RF Armed Forces. That is, the cars are not with any imported components, but entirely imported, in violation of Russian law. The decision is motivated by a good goal - taking care of the lives of our soldiers, since, as it is written in an Italian advertisement, the machine has a 6a class of ballistic protection and "holds" a 6 kg TNT blast under the wheel. The Italians did not allow to check these statements, although two samples were bought from them, the money was given for them. This alone should alert, so maybe they will forbid our military to use them in combat conditions or even ride them? At the very first test Iveco got stuck in the snow, so they decided not to risk further and to stop all tests, but to draw up the acts "as expected." In addition, at temperatures below -32єС, the operation of an Italian car is prohibited by the instructions. Military specialists who doubted the high performance of the Iveco LMV M65 were ordered to keep their mouths shut and threatened with dismissal from the army. And later it turned out that the ceramic armor - the pride of Iveco LMV M65, at subzero temperatures turns into ordinary ceramic tiles like the one that is placed on the bathroom floor, since the polymer substrate of the ceramic blocks freezes and does not "work". A bullet just splits such a panel and flies where it needs to be.
The creators of the "Tiger" are already ready to make it with 6a protection class, and with a domestic engine, and with air conditioning, and with BIUS, and with anything. At the same time, a domestic armored car is several times cheaper than imported counterparts with the same combat properties.
Yes, today our armored vehicles do not have an absolute advantage over those in the tank parks of Western countries, as it was in the late 70s and early 80s of the last century. The criticality of the situation is not even in this, but in something else. If the current attitude of the leadership of the Ministry of Defense to the tank industry and to the tank forces, and to the army as a whole, continues for a few more years - and we will never be able to restore the leading positions in the creation and construction of armored vehicles, we will lose tank forces, and we will buy armored vehicles again abroad, but not individual samples for study, but in large batches, since the domestic industry will be completely destroyed.
I still want to believe that common sense will prevail. And we will believe in it. Not only to believe, but also to do everything so that Russia again becomes the world's leading tank power. And our soldiers received at their disposal the world's best tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and armored vehicles of domestic production. For this, everything is in our country. All you need is the will to make the right decision.
