Earlier, we introduced the recent one-time loss of 20 tanks of armored vehicles by the Russian army in Avdeyev, and considered this to be a tragic scene in which the ground forces are not willing to be eliminated by the times. Of all the threats facing tanks, the most striking contradiction now stems not from landmines, but from the ubiquitous traversal suicide drones. As a result, the Russian army tested two more technologies on the battlefield in the following week.
One is to turn the turret of a T-72MB3 tank into an electronic warfare monster. THAT IS, THERE ARE 2.4GHZ AND 5.8GHZ PATCH ANTENNAS PLACED ON THE TURRET, AND THERE ARE EVEN SEPARATE ELECTROMAGNETIC AND ENGINES. The goal of the Russian army is to make the Ukrainian suicide drone lose control when it approaches the T-72, that is, to disrupt the communication capabilities of the drone through suppressive interference. However, in the end, the tank was shot into the soul by the traverser. This approach is theoretically reasonable, because generators and patch antennas can not only interfere with the communication of the traverser, but also add some defense to the top of the tank. But in actual operation, the jamming aircraft of the Russian army cannot cover all frequencies of the UAV communication of the Ukrainian army, not to mention that the Ukrainian army also has an autonomous attack crossing aircraft, which does not accept interference at all in the final impact stage.
The second creation of the Russian army is too interesting, and many netizens should have noticed that a turtle tank appeared on the battlefield in Ukraine for the first time. Unlike the previous Russian army's anti-drone defense network for tanks, this time the Russian army gave the tank a shell-like device that can defend in all directions in addition to the front armor. From the outside, you look very much like a turtle with only one head in front of it. I can see this innovation against the Russian army as the last stubbornness of the tank in the face of suicidal crossing.
From the point of view of actual combat, this tank did not survive 10 minutes on the battlefield from entering the line of attack to being destroyed. This also proves from one side that the technology of relying on omnidirectional armor to improve or defend the tank is still immature. Why?
Because although the "Turtle" tank has increased its ability to defend against UAVs, the price paid is very serious. First, the battlefield situational awareness of this tank is only exercised in the front, and all the periscope equipment on the tank has become blind; second, because the turtle tank provides an omnidirectional defensive shell, it will inevitably lead to a significant decrease in the tank's maneuverability; third, even if this tank can defend against piercing suicide drones, it cannot defend against other firepower such as Excalibur shells, anti-tank missiles, and mines. It can be seen that the use range of this turtle shell tank is very limited, it can only open the road in front, and once it is intercepted by the opponent's tank or armored vehicle, it is limited by the difficulty of turning around and poor situational awareness, and only becomes a live target for a variety of anti-tank fire. However, because such a defensive shell can cover the position of the engine and magazine, if it can be further improved, the tank sight port can be retained, and lighter materials are used, it is still more effective for the defense of the crossing machine, and such an innovation cannot be killed with a stick.
Why is it said that the Russian army's conversion of tanks into turtle shells is the last stubbornness of ground armor forces? Because this means can be said to be an extreme embodiment of passive defense. Both tanks did not survive more than a few minutes on the battlefield, thus proving that the real hope for the survival of the tank in the future depends on advances in active defense system technology. Of course, there is currently no active defense system in the world capable of effectively intercepting the traverser. This also means that the best option for the position of the tank on the battlefield is to protect the living forces in the position of the side, and to use it for the high risk of attack.
For China's military-industrial enterprises, it is a technical problem that we can develop as soon as possible a small vertical active defense system that can be independently attached to tanks and armored vehicles to intercept incoming crossing aircraft. It also means that the survivability of the next generation of tanks will mainly rely on the advancement of situational awareness, informatization and active defense system technology, and there is no need to over-pursue the thickness of the armor.