"The first to go forward": Major General of the Reserve - on the development and combat use of Russian tank forces

— Vladimir Nikolaevich, tank troops have always been the pride of our army.

They were respected and continue to be respected in the West.

What is the distinguishing feature of domestic tank building?

- The most important feature of Soviet and Russian tank building is the optimal combination of all the qualities that are needed in battle.

What should ideally be a tank?

Quite inconspicuous on the ground, have good protection, serious firepower, be unpretentious in maintenance and repair, reliable and able to travel long distances.

Our tanks correspond to all these qualities.

Compared to Western vehicles, they have much more modest weight and size characteristics, a lower silhouette.

The mass of Russian tanks does not exceed 50 tons, while modern NATO models already weigh over 60 tons. As a result, our tanks are more maneuverable, they can easily move over almost any bridges, and they are easier to transport by rail.

A tank, like any other high-tech type of military equipment, requires compromise design solutions.

In my opinion, our engineers have implemented this principle to the fullest extent.

In addition, our tanks are well adapted to a variety of natural and climatic conditions.

In particular, we have a gas turbine T-80.

Its engine does not require warming up in cold weather and is perfect for operation in the Arctic.

And the deeply modernized T-72B3M and the new T-90M show themselves well in the mountain-desert area.

Maybe I, as an officer and patriot of my Motherland, am somewhat biased, but I consider Russian tanks to be the best in the world in terms of a combination of key combat qualities.

In addition, our machines are relatively inexpensive.

The economic possibilities of modern Russia make it possible to maintain and continuously develop our tank building.

Unfriendly countries are also well aware of this, they are carefully studying our new technical solutions and tactics for using tanks.

It seems to me that the NATO countries highly appreciate the capabilities of our tank forces.

• Reserve Major General Vladimir Bogatyrev

• © National Association MEGAPIR

- What is the peculiarity of the Western tank-building school?

- In the West there is no single school of tank building.

There are American, British, French and German schools.

Israel has its own school.

Chinese and Iranian are developing.

To characterize them in the most general terms, the French school is the Leclerc tanks, which are distinguished by good electronics, while the American Abrams and German Leopards have high-quality and unusually powerful engines.

In general, Western designers took a completely different path.

For example, unlike the USSR and Russia, they left a fourth crew member - the loader.

In our country, starting with the T-64, an automatic loader is installed, which allows you to significantly save the internal space of the tank.

Actually, the presence of a loader is one of the objective reasons why NATO tanks are so massive.

I will not hide the fact that Western cars are more comfortable for the crew.

But this problem in the modernized and new tanks of Russia, especially in the T-14, is practically solved.

I would speak very conditionally about the shortcomings of foreign cars.

Very competent people are engaged in their improvement.

Some Western specialists are worse than ours, and some are better.

In terms of firepower, Russian and Western tanks are comparable.

The same automatic loader does not give a gain in rate of fire.

However, I would call the presence of guided missiles along with traditional 125 mm caliber shells a certain advantage of domestic vehicles in terms of fire capabilities.

- Is it worth it in principle to increase the caliber of tank guns?

This was thought about in the West, and in Russia earlier it was proposed to put a 152-mm gun on the T-14 Armata.

- Installing a heavier and more powerful gun will require a fundamental change in the layout of the tank.

Obviously, then its mass will increase and the ammunition load will decrease.

As a result, it will not be too clear how a tank with such a gun is fundamentally different from a self-propelled artillery mount.

I'm afraid that a tank with a significantly more powerful gun will end up losing too many native combat advantages - first of all, it's mobility and maneuverability.

- Against the backdrop of a special operation in the Russian and Western public sphere, an opinion is expressed that the tank has lost its former importance in the theater of operations (theater of operations), that now it is, in fact, only a means of fire support for infantry.

What do you think about this?

- Assertions that the value of the tank on the battlefield has greatly degraded have been heard regularly in recent decades.

Critics often use the following arguments: the number of tanks in the arsenals of the world's leading armies has decreased since the Cold War, there are practically no truly revolutionary developments, tanks have become more vulnerable in theaters due to the development of reconnaissance equipment, UAVs and missile weapons.

All these arguments are half true.

Yes, there are no tank armadas for a long time and large-scale tank battles too.

But note that not a single major state in the world has abandoned tanks, constantly modernizes them and always uses them in almost any military operation.

Moreover, there has been a trend towards the enlargement of tank units.

As before, the tank remains the main means of breaking through the enemy defenses and the most protected type of military equipment.

Tanks are capable of raiding deep into enemy defenses and inflicting very serious damage on them.

In many respects, tanks are indispensable as ground means of combating enemy armored vehicles, its engineering structures, and firing points, including in urban areas.

• RIA News

Few people know, but in case of critical need, the tank can actually replace the self-propelled guns, as it has the ability to fire along a hinged trajectory.

The range of fire at an elevation angle of a tank gun over 20 degrees reaches 10 km or more (against the maximum direct fire range of 5 km. -

).

However, in modern conditions, it is not advisable to use a tank as an independent combat unit.

Otherwise, it is really likely to be detected and destroyed by aircraft, infantry, artillery or an enemy tank.

A modern tank operates as part of the information and reconnaissance system ACS TZ (automated tactical control system. - 

).

Only under the cover of air defense systems, with effective military reconnaissance and artillery preparation, the tank realizes its combat potential.

The infantry fire support that critics talk about is just one of the main and traditional tasks of tank troops.

The special operation eloquently refutes the thesis about the uselessness of tanks in the theater.

They are actively used by both sides in offensive operations, including in settlements.

— There are a lot of criticisms on the Internet regarding the weak security of tanks.

Russian vehicles are allegedly devoid of active protection systems (KAZ), and this is their big drawback.

- I repeat: with the effective work of support and cover means, a tank, and not even the most protected one, is capable of successfully fulfilling the tasks of breaking through the enemy’s defenses.

If we discuss directly the protection of tanks, then the quality of armor, as well as dynamic protection, that is, complexes that ensure the undermining of enemy cumulative projectiles, is of paramount importance.

Active defense systems are means that destroy ammunition while still on the approach.

There are really few of them on Russian tanks so far.

These are expensive means of defense, but they are also needed.

As far as I can tell, in the near future the problem of equipping our KAZ tanks will go off the agenda.

Moreover, the Russian defense industry has worthy developments in this area.

- The special operation once again showed how important situational awareness is in the theater.

UAVs are an important means of ensuring it.

Is there a need to equip our tanks with drones that would fly out of the cannons and then transmit information to the crews?

- At all times, the tank crew experienced difficulties in providing situational awareness.

Now this problem is being solved by installing a variety of observational equipment and interacting with other types of equipment, including UAVs.

In Russia and in the West, the need to create a tank munition in the form of a UAV with a drop-down wing or aerodynamic tail after leaving the bore is being discussed.

This is a viable idea, but I personally do not see an urgent need to develop such a product due to the already widespread use of light tactical drones in the troops.

- I can't help but ask about the peculiarities of using tanks during the NMD.

Of course, we did not observe major tank battles.

But were there, for example, tank duels?

- In fact, we do not know much about the features of the use of tanks in a special operation.

Despite the widespread use of telecommunications devices, we naturally receive very little reliable information.

Most likely, tank duels in one form or another take place.

In the end, one of the main purposes of the tank is the fight against their own kind.

• Russian Armed Forces tank during a special operation

• RIA News

I agree with you that we do not see a truly massive simultaneous combat use of tanks in Ukraine.

However, the specifics of the NMD play a role here, where there is no desire on the part of the parties to organize a truly large-scale breakthrough deep into the enemy defenses with large masses of troops.

This is not a classic and not at all a typical armed conflict.

However, as I said above, assault operations in the Ukrainian theater are not carried out without tanks.

Under careful cover and in small groups, the tanks move forward first.

BMPs move behind tanks, then armored personnel carriers, other wheeled vehicles and infantry.

If the offensive is carried out by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, then the BMPT "Terminator" is also used.

This vehicle has proven to be an effective means of supporting tanks.

- Many in Russia are wondering why the T-14 "Armata" is not used during the special operation?

What can you say about this?

And what do you think is the future of this tank?

- It is necessary to ask our General Staff about this.

People who work there are much better than us and a huge number of pseudo-experts on TV understand what equipment needs to be used in hostilities.

If T-14s are not sent to the NWO zone, then this is not necessary.

For my part, I can say that, based on the specifics of the NMD, it is quite realistic to use even the T-62M tank, which was recently demonstrated in an improved form at the Army-2022 forum.

This variant is a very worthy machine with a 115 mm cannon, for which there is a sufficient number of shells. 

Therefore, I personally do not see any urgent need to use the T-14 in the special operation zone.

It seems to me that Armata is a technological platform not only for tanks, it is a reserve for future development.

In terms of the number of innovative solutions, this tank was ahead of modern Western models by 15-20 years.

Now painstaking mastering of these innovations and the development of equipment with which Armata will interact on the battlefield are required.

The potential of the T-14 is still untapped, but the joint work of our engineers and the military will certainly lead to a significant practical result.