Literally just now, on the Web, including on VO, there was a material about the next improvement of the BM "Terminator", the model of which was presented at the exhibition "Days of Innovation", which was held in October in Yekaterinburg. A buzzword, a spectacularly painted model, literally studded with various types of weapons. But is it as effective, as it seems, to put various means of destruction on a combat vehicle and thus significantly increase its destructive power?
Model BMPT "Terminator". Photo by Denis Peredrienko from Vestnik Mordovia
It is not easy to give an unequivocal answer to this question, but you can try, first by referring to history. And how did the improvement of the existing serial BTT models go in general, what ideas and principles were the designers guided by? After all, the BMPT "Terminator" is also an improvement, so all this will be correct in his respect.
For example, here is the project of the German LK-III tank with a 57-mm cannon in a cylindrical turret. How does it differ from the LK-II tank, which, by the way, did not make it to the battlefield, although it was tested? It differs only in that it was deployed "backwards". The base model had a turret in the stern. This limited the driver's view directly along the course and did not allow, again, directly in front of him to shoot at the trenches. At that time, shooting from a tank almost point-blank was very important, so the Germans decided to move the turret forward and the engine back! Good idea, but never put into practice.
The Swedes in 1932 decided to create an "unbreakable" armored car, covered with armor from all sides. And they created it! Moreover, they covered all the wheels with armor, including the spare ones, which, turning, helped to overcome obstacles on the battlefield. The cannon is forward, the machine gun is back, the machine gun is in the tower … And what is the result? As a result, the angle of rotation of the wheels was severely limited by the armor plates and the car lost its maneuverability and could only operate on the roads. Of course, on the roads, especially on Swedish roads, you also need to fight, but isn't it too luxurious: a special BA only for roads? And in the end, these BAs did not go! They were replaced by the much more traditional Landsverk machines.
The layout of the tank is of enormous importance. Here is the traditional layout of three WWII tanks: the M3, the T-III, and the T-34. The axiom is that the longer the tank is, the more its agility will deteriorate with all its other characteristics, although it will overcome wide ditches. Hence the compromise: a very long tank is bad on the one hand, and a very short one on the other! Of these three tanks, the T-III is the shortest, and its "agility" has always been an unpleasant surprise for gunners and Soviet and Anglo-American tanks. In the T-34, a lot of space is occupied by the engine and transmission. It is obvious. It was not without reason that even then on the T-34M it was planned to put the motor across to make it shorter. So if the war had delayed a little, we would have seen a completely different legendary tank on the battlefields!
You don't have to repeat yourself about the American car. Due to the peculiar location of the engine, the tank came out very high, which means it was a good target!
And now let's see what the installation of an American-type air-cooled engine on all these tanks would give. Well, on the M3, this engine could be rearranged and … then what? Let's start with M3. It was enough to install it horizontally, and not obliquely, at an angle, as the height of the car would immediately drop. Not much, but dropped. Maintenance of the motor would also be easier. True, a clutch with bevel gears would be needed, but technically it would not be very difficult to make one. In any case, the level of development of American technology allowed it. For the T-III, replacing the engine in terms of dimensions would not have played any role, but since the American engine was more powerful than the German one (340 hp versus 285 hp), the speed qualities of the German tank would have increased even more!
At first glance, such a replacement would be a blessing for the T-34. The size of the engine compartment would be reduced. The tower could be moved back. Move the hatch to the roof of the hull. Centering would have also improved, that is, maneuverability too, but … The Continental engine power was 340 hp, while our V-2-34 had 500 hp. And although some of these forces were eaten away by the imperfect gearbox, the replacement would be clearly unequal. Although very beneficial in all other respects! That is, the engine would need to be boosted to 500 liters. with. And this would be reflected in his resource! And what is the gain then?
And finally, the weapons. There has always been a desire to "put more on the tank". That's how tanks with two guns in one tower were born, that's how tanks with three guns in three towers were born, and that's strange - the experience of these machines did not teach the designers anything! Already at the end of the war, German designers cooked up a draft of the "Mouse-2" tank. Presumably they didn’t like “just Mouse” and they decided to “improve” it. Together with the turret with two guns (128 mm and 75 mm), it was proposed to put on the tank a turret from the Panther II with an 88 mm gun and a turret with a 150 mm short howitzer. Needless to say, nothing came of this project, since the German industry was on its way. But even if these tanks did go, then again the same drawback would appear in them as in the previous multi-turret vehicles: which goal should be considered a priority, and which one to choose for which weapon? In theory, the upper tower hits the infantry, the lower tower hits the tanks, but in a real combat situation, the human psyche is often simply incapable of making adequate decisions based on the choice! The less opportunities for choice, the faster the reaction! And then … while they were deciding "from which to whom", while they were choosing the position "I am better off this way," some single-barreled "St., very powerful and … no choice!
Modern technology has freed the hands of designers, so that tanks can now be made in a variety of ways. Fig. 1 is the layout of the Armata tank, but with an electric propulsion system. Why? Because the Americans very loudly announced work on a fundamentally new chassis with electric propulsion. And this machine was supposed to become the basis for a new BMP, but … it did not! That is, the arrangement of the three crew members "shoulder to shoulder" is a good thing, but with the electric propulsion, as from the time of "Saint-Chamon" and "Ferdinand", the matter has not been worked out, so something breakthroughs are not visible even today. Figure 2 shows a tank with two crew members, robotic to the limit. So far, this is only an idea, whether it will be embodied in metal, time will tell.
"City tank" is an obsessive "fix idea" of many … pseudo-scientific journalists. The military themselves are generally silent. That is, "yes, it would be nice," but what about the budget? And so in theory … the main crew is in front, and two shooters with turrets on the sides of the tower are firing on the roofs and upper floors from six-barreled Minigun machine guns.
And here, again, are the possible layouts of tanks and combat vehicles of the future. Rice. 1 - the main battle tank with two "arrows on the roofs" or it can be operators of some systems like UAVs. Rice. 2 is an almost completely robotic ACS. Rice. 3 - this is just something similar to the promising BMTP "Terminator", which is reported by "Vestnik Mordovii": the driver in the middle, left and right - operators of grenade launchers and machine guns in the hull. Behind - two weapons operators in the tower. And then two UAV operators or what is supposed to be put on it? And the situation is about the same as with many towers - only instead of towers, people who control various weapons systems. Will there not be so many people? Then the choice itself will become a hindrance! The last two drawings are a heavy infantry fighting vehicle and a heavy armored personnel carrier. Why is there no motor in front? And to stay mobile in any situation! Let it be better to have armor in front, and the engine, so as not to be hit, from behind! Again, these are just ideas, they have not been tested in practice.
Maybe it's easier to do? Create a "tank support tanks" (or let's call it the old-fashioned "tank-destroyer") without a tower, automatic cannons, grenade launchers and missiles in launch containers vulnerable to bullets and fragments. And to place in the body several heavy high-speed missiles (variants of their launch are shown in the figure), which, only due to their mass, will carry anything out of their way. Put on a rocket a kind of cylinder of cast steel with TNT inside weighing as much as 100 kg and accelerate it to a decent speed … It will not be easy to shoot down such a "thing" from the flight path, and even if it hits the target, but demolishes the tower from the same "Abrams "Only due to its striking power.
BMPL on "Terminator" … well - it's a good thing. By the way, it is interesting that back in 1942, the British created a strange combat vehicle called "Praying Mantis" with a rising warhead in order to, so to speak, survey the area from a height and, at the same time, fire at the upper floors and attics of buildings with convenience. "It didn't work!" Do you know why? The crew, located inside the prone, swayed!
BMPT "Terminator" to the subsequent improvements.
It is clear that the operators will sit in the Terminator, and they will not be rocked, but … and what kind of UAVs are planned to be installed on this machine? Disposable scouts, combat drones, universal vehicles … what exactly? Much depends on their purpose. Meanwhile, the hybrid BMP with "Praying Mantis" has been known for a long time! This is an infantry fighting vehicle (project), which has a UAV in the rear, connected by a cable to the vehicle and powered by electricity. It seems that the cable is inconvenient, but it gives an unlimited stay in the air. And most importantly, such a UAV will be lightweight and will be able to carry a lot of weapons.
The combat helicopter module seems to be too large today. You can reduce it significantly. And so it is a completely modern design.
And the tactics of using it is simple: he raised, looked, saw the enemy, fired missiles at him and … "dive" back into the bushes, that is, to reload the BMP site.
Well, as a conclusion: in philosophy there is the principle of "Occam's razor". All unnecessary entities are "cut off". A tank or an infantry fighting vehicle is also a set of entities, and adding more and more to us … is it worth it?
Rice. A. Shepsa
Link:
