Military Review

What needs to be fixed in the armament of the tank?

171
The T-14 tank, created on the basis of the Armat’s heavy unified platform, is still the subject of debate among experts in many countries, writes Messenger of Mordovia.


What needs to be fixed in the armament of the tank?


Most experts highly appreciate the latest development, but there is an opinion that this "combat vehicle with a powerful 125-mm gun has very weak machine-gun armament - just one machine gun, and that caliber 7,62-mm."



It is located in a remote-controlled module on the roof of the tower. Experts believe that no matter how powerful and precise the main weapon may be, it’s impossible to do without large-caliber anti-aircraft guns and machine guns paired with a cannon.

Experts are sure that as soon as the vehicles start entering the troops, the tankers will immediately demand more machine guns.



“Something similar has already happened with another modern a tank - T-90MS. Potential customers of this vehicle insisted that the mentioned 7,62 mm PKTM, which was initially located in a similar to the "Armatovsky" command module, be changed to a 12,7 mm Kord. Probably the same thing will happen with “Armata”, ”says Dmitry Lemeshko in the article.

It is assumed that the latest modification of the Pecheneg machine gun, the work on which has now been completed, will appear on the tank as an armament paired with a gun. At least, such information was announced at the international forum "Army-2017", the author concludes.

Photos used:
http://vestnik-rm.ru
171 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Shurik70
    Shurik70 22 January 2018 13: 08
    +4
    Nonsense. Machine gun in a remotely controlled module.
    It seems small, on the same nest they will put a larger caliber or larger trunks. Modular structure.
    1. Scoun
      Scoun 22 January 2018 13: 13
      11
      Quote: Shurik70
      Nonsense. Machine gun in a remotely controlled module.

      And what exactly is the nonsense?
      In the fact that now, in fact, 7,62 or in the fact that this is not enough for the tank, or nonsense in the fact that the tank is not currently standing at 12,7.
      1. Shurik70
        Shurik70 22 January 2018 13: 16
        15
        Nonsense is that it is necessary to "fix".
        It is necessary not to correct, but a greater variety of modules, so that for different tasks, right in the hangar, the necessary equipment could be assembled on site. If we take the modules to do, we must realize the advantage of this to the fullest.
        For many tasks and the current module is suitable
        1. bk316
          bk316 22 January 2018 13: 23
          +4
          It’s not necessary to fix, but a greater variety of modules,

          Probably people want to say that a module with 7.62 is not needed at all. bully
        2. activator
          activator 22 January 2018 13: 24
          +5
          Quote: Shurik70
          It’s not necessary to fix, but a greater variety of modules, so that for the different tasks right in the hangar on the spot you could collect the necessary equipment

          More different modules on one chassis is this rubbish, when will you change them? and tasks in progress may change.
          1. Shurik70
            Shurik70 22 January 2018 13: 30
            +4
            No tank fights on its own.
            He needs a base. Service Technique. Supply Base. Here on this base, you can even mobile, and you must have a minimum supply of modules.
            Caliber 12,7, of course, is more powerful than 7, 62, but 7,62 rounds will fit more. So let the tank commander decide what to take before leaving.
            1. activator
              activator 22 January 2018 13: 33
              12
              Quote: Shurik70
              No tank fights on its own.
              He needs a base. Service Technique. Supply Base. Here on this base, you can even mobile, and you need a minimum supply of modules.
              Caliber 12,7, of course, is more powerful than 7, 62, but 7,62 rounds will fit more. So let the tank commander decide what to take before leaving.

              I’m certainly not a tank commander, but I would have taken both, and another and another grenade launcher.
              1. Shurik70
                Shurik70 22 January 2018 13: 38
                +7
                And I would have a couple more tanks and an attack helicopter.
                soldier
                1. activator
                  activator 22 January 2018 13: 44
                  +6
                  Quote: Shurik70
                  And I would have a couple more tanks and an attack helicopter.

                  Well, you yourself answered your own question, what is better to have an AND, than an OR-OR
                  1. Bosch
                    Bosch 22 January 2018 15: 18
                    +4
                    And Pinocchio in addition.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. Alex20042004
                      Alex20042004 22 January 2018 19: 16
                      +4
                      Yeah, with Molvina laughing laughing laughing
                      1. AUL
                        AUL 22 January 2018 19: 21
                        +4
                        Quote: Alex20042004
                        Yeah, with Molvina laughing laughing laughing

                        And you can without Pinocchio.
            2. verner1967
              verner1967 22 January 2018 14: 11
              +6
              Quote: Shurik70
              Supply Base. Here on this base, you can even mobile, and you must have a minimum supply of modules.

              And how many kilometers will this base stretch in combat conditions? And if a successful raid, and tanks in battle? What machine guns do not deliver the right caliber? The article clearly states:
              Quote: Shurik70
              Experts believe that no matter how powerful and accurate the main gun is, large-caliber anti-aircraft guns and coaxial machine guns can not be dispensed with.

              Well, why argue, 12,7 on the roof, 7,62 paired in the tower, the processed scheme is already
              1. Genry
                Genry 22 January 2018 15: 17
                +4
                Quote: verner1967
                Well, why argue, 12,7 on the roof, 7,62 paired in the tower, the processed scheme is already

                7,62 mm is suitable only for the male with no body armor. We need a new machine gun of 9 mm caliber (more than 6000 J). Then in the tower and on the roof there will be a unified machine gun.
                1. aws4
                  aws4 22 January 2018 17: 22
                  11
                  Wow, and that somewhere there is an army in which the infantry is fully equipped with armor plates that confidently hold a bullet from a pct ???? let's then all ak, we’ll write off they can’t spit in comparison with the point ... by the way, did you shoot with this machine gun ??? Did you see the results after the shooting ??? so I saw how from him (maybe I didn’t specify the armor-piercing ones unfortunately) I asked about 200 meters of armored personnel carriers to the side ..
                  1. Genry
                    Genry 22 January 2018 17: 49
                    +1
                    Quote: aws4
                    and that somewhere there is an army in which the infantry is fully equipped with armored vehicles that confidently hold a bullet from a pct?

                    5th class of defense, point blank ... Only the wimps go into battle without bronikov.
                    Quote: aws4
                    let's then all ak write off they can actually spit in comparison with pct ...

                    AK for close combat and all hope for a “stream” that seriously injures an unprotected area or gouges a bulletproof vest or gets into your head.
                    Quote: aws4
                    ... so I saw how from him (maybe I didn’t specify the armor-piercing ones unfortunately) they asked 200 meters from the side for armored personnel carriers ..

                    What kind of armored personnel carrier? Our must keep a sniper armor-piercing from 10 meters. A bullet from SVD has more energy than PCT (less automation costs). You are not confused with 12,7 mm?
                    1. aws4
                      aws4 23 January 2018 07: 27
                      0
                      for the first time I hear about a sniper armor-piercing pool ... no, I don’t confuse it with PKT 7.62 and our armored personnel carrier looks like 80, only the so high
                    2. aws4
                      aws4 23 January 2018 07: 29
                      0
                      sorry what is a jet? I’m seriously clarifying I’m not joking ...
                      1. Genry
                        Genry 23 January 2018 15: 01
                        0
                        Quote: aws4
                        sorry what is a jet? I’m seriously clarifying I’m not joking ...

                        And I’m just joking, because the "turn" in the sense is no longer suitable ...
                    3. AleBors
                      AleBors 23 January 2018 09: 12
                      0
                      I assure you, after hitting 7,62 in 5+, the armor carrier will not seem enough to the armored carrier. Contusion of internal organs and fracture of the ribs are provided.
                      1. Genry
                        Genry 23 January 2018 15: 05
                        0
                        Quote: AleBors
                        I assure you, after hitting 7,62 in 5+, the armor carrier will not seem enough to the armored carrier. Contusion of internal organs and fracture of the ribs are provided.

                        Your understanding at the level of a Kevlar shirt ...
                        Read about the bronics. This is protection against damage. Another thing is that he will hold back a few hits, but from many - to fall apart.
        3. igorka357
          igorka357 22 January 2018 14: 08
          +2
          A tank for different tasks, is it like that? Or a machine gun on a tank for different tasks? So we actually have BMPT for this .. yes and infantry ..))))
      2. svp67
        svp67 22 January 2018 13: 17
        10
        Quote: Scoun
        And what exactly is the nonsense?

        The fact that the tank is still virtually NO, and its weaknesses are already being discussed. Let's see what goes to the troops, then we can talk ...
        1. activator
          activator 22 January 2018 13: 20
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          The fact that the tank is still virtually NO, and its weaknesses are already being discussed. Let's see what goes to the troops, then we can talk.

          And, that it’s not immediately clear that at the given moment the machine gun is weak and it’s not enough, why wait until it goes to the troops, and then correct it.
          1. svp67
            svp67 22 January 2018 13: 24
            +3
            Quote: activator
            And, that it’s not immediately clear that at the given moment the machine gun is weak and it’s not enough, why wait until it goes to the troops, and then correct it.

            And who said that in such a way he will go to the troops?
            Here is a similar installation on the T-90MS, but 12,7 mm
            1. activator
              activator 22 January 2018 13: 30
              +1
              Quote: svp67
              And who said that in such a way he will go to the troops?

              Soon it was already three years since it was first shown and nothing really changed on it.
              1. svp67
                svp67 22 January 2018 13: 32
                +1
                Quote: activator
                Soon it was already three years since it was first shown and nothing really changed on it.

                And where did you see “Armata” besides parades? So "ceremonial" and will not change.
                1. activator
                  activator 22 January 2018 13: 38
                  0
                  Quote: svp67
                  And where did you see “Armata” besides parades? So "ceremonial" and will not change.

                  I think that the installation of additional machine guns is not so secret infa that would hide it. If they put it, it would have leaked somewhere.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 22 January 2018 13: 55
                    +3
                    Quote: activator
                    If they put it, it would have leaked somewhere.

                    From where and where? You hear a lot of "leaks" about the modernization of the T-72 hear? Only upon the fact of their mass enrollment in the army or twenty years later ...
                    1. activator
                      activator 22 January 2018 14: 08
                      0
                      Let's leave for now which armata will go to the troops. Tell me, as a tanker, one module 7.62 is enough for a tank?
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 22 January 2018 15: 17
                        +2
                        Quote: activator
                        Tell me, as a tanker, one module 7.62 is enough for a tank?

                        No
                    2. activator
                      activator 22 January 2018 15: 48
                      0
                      Quote: svp67
                      No

                      You understand, I’m not a tanker, I also understand this, and there is no UVZ designer, it’s strange to create a tank that will initially be flawed, and then upgrade it later. What for? If you can right away.
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 22 January 2018 15: 54
                        +5
                        Quote: activator
                        You understand, I’m not a tanker, I also understand this, and there is no UVZ designer, it’s strange to create a tank that will initially be flawed, and then upgrade it later. What for? If you can right away.

                        Oh, let's not talk about the sick. If it were possible to tell in what torment and in what terms these machines were created to keep up with the HOLIDAY. I really hope that even now they will not "drive horses", but will do everything wisely.
                    3. activator
                      activator 22 January 2018 16: 07
                      0
                      Quote: svp67
                      to keep up with the HOLIDAY

                      Wow, anniversaries are holy. The main thing is to be ready for the parade, and not for war. request
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 22 January 2018 16: 12
                        +3
                        Quote: activator
                        The main thing is to be ready for the parade, and not for war.

                        Sometimes a great parade is the way to win the war ...

                        Here is the parade of 1941, in November. And by the way, on it, in the BT-7 column there was a tank of modification "E", it is marked with an arrow. But this modification did not go into a series ...
              2. Piramidon
                Piramidon 22 January 2018 14: 37
                +1
                Quote: activator
                Soon it was already three years since it was first shown and nothing really changed on it.

                Have you already seen the final production version of the tank and you know what has changed on it and what not? It is not even known what stands on the prototypes. They show us only the appearance. In order to do this, tests are carried out so that later the modified car will go into the series taking into account all the identified shortcomings.
                1. activator
                  activator 22 January 2018 15: 58
                  +1
                  Quote: Piramidon
                  . We are only shown the appearance

                  From the appearance you can also understand a lot, and if there are no machine guns there, then they are not there. And here we just have to admit that the UVZ design bureau specifically screwed up on this issue, having completely relied on the experience of using tanks in Chechnya. And of course you can now prove from feelings of patriotism that the armata is not a camel, but in which case you, your children, grandchildren should sit in this tank. I’m still looking at the Afghanite, I can’t understand how it will knock down spikes and javelins that will hit the roof, and the infa that if it hits the stern the afghanite will automatically deploy the tower, for this is generally beyond reason.
                  1. Piramidon
                    Piramidon 22 January 2018 17: 05
                    +1
                    Quote: activator
                    From the appearance you can also understand a lot, and if there are no machine guns there, then they are not there.

                    It is not known which version of the tank and where those "specialists" referred to in the article saw. It is possible that in that case there were tests of the undercarriage, and at this stage it is possible to put at least “deaf” instead of a machine gun. And, if the module is universal (apparently, the way it is), then it will be possible to stick there any machine gun at the request of the customer.
                    I’m still looking at the Afghanite. I can’t understand how it will knock down spikes and javelins that will hit the roof

                    Progress does not stand still. I hope that in our design bureau there are "big-headed" designers who will find an "antidote." The potential reserve of modernization of "Almaty" is laid for more than one decade. Compare even the T-72 of the first production models of 1973 and the modernized T-72B3, this is heaven and earth.
            2. yehat
              yehat 22 January 2018 15: 06
              +2
              it’s not just a specific installation.
              80 years ago they began to experiment with multi-tower tanks in line with the classic layout (Renault FT), trying to create an organic car
              but half of the projects step on the same rake, creating one-sided adapted machines and then painfully bringing them to condition.
              How many years does it take for this to be done right away?
              There are no secondary things in the tank. The fuel tank cap is no less important than the gun. In addition, the machine gun is not so radically changing thing that it does not immediately provide.
        2. cariperpaint
          cariperpaint 22 January 2018 13: 20
          +2
          What does it mean no? the first batch has already gone to the troops.
          1. svp67
            svp67 22 January 2018 13: 25
            +2
            Quote: cariperpaint
            What does it mean no? the first batch has already gone to the troops.

            Well, only for MILITARY TESTS. After that, the identified deficiencies will be eliminated.
            1. cariperpaint
              cariperpaint 22 January 2018 13: 36
              +3
              but how can the army go then what is not?)))
              1. svp67
                svp67 22 January 2018 13: 38
                +1
                Quote: cariperpaint
                but how can the army go then what is not?)))

                In the usual manner. ON TESTS. Before adoption, for the army of this combat unit - NO.
                1. cariperpaint
                  cariperpaint 22 January 2018 13: 51
                  0
                  Well, su 35 was also adopted a few months ago) and there are still more examples. By the way, the army has been going on for more than a year now, the party is simply bigger and there is more bias towards developing tactics for their application.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 22 January 2018 13: 56
                    +1
                    Quote: cariperpaint
                    and there is more bias towards the development of tactics for their application.

                    And it depends on the available weapons. Recognize it as insufficient - they will demand an increase.
      3. Now we are free
        Now we are free 22 January 2018 13: 22
        +9
        DU ZPU for such a supernova tank as "Armata" should definitely be 12 * 7 and not 7 * 62. The battles in Syria have clearly shown this (watch a video from an interview with CAA tankers). In addition to the fight against helicopters / planes / drones (in the sky), he is much better at dealing with martyrs / tayotachanki / upper floors of buildings (on the ground). It would be possible to put even 12 * 7 and 14 * 5 KPVT ... Well, KPVT will definitely easily solve most of the problems that you should not pay attention to the main gun ...
        1. marlin1203
          marlin1203 22 January 2018 14: 10
          +1
          And BMPT, accompanied by what?
        2. igorka357
          igorka357 22 January 2018 14: 10
          +2
          It’s possible to stick a barrel from ZUShka, what’s already there ... 23 mm is not just 14,5 ... but we can add another 125k to the turret from above, then there will be chic!
          1. tchoni
            tchoni 22 January 2018 14: 57
            +4
            Quote: igorka357
            It’s possible to stick a barrel from ZUShka, what’s already there ... 23 mm is not just 14,5 ... but we can add another 125k to the turret from above, then there will be chic!

            And you remember the drawings of this tank BEFORE a bright moment of the appearance of his people in metal))) There and 30 ka in addition to the gun were present and some kind of machingan ... For these were the aspirations of the people. For the experience of using tanks to restore constitutional order in Ichkeria has shown that the tank needs a certain stray, capable of:
            a) Reach targets located significantly above and below the tank. At large vertical (positive and negative) guidance angles.
            b) Punch with the walls of field fortifications. (houses and other buildings)
            c) provide tank armament with a certain multi-channel capability.
            The creators of the t-14 did not give a damn about it and created an anti-tank self-propelled guns (let the rotating turret not bother you). And, therefore, they will refine this car. (it seems to me that this is a consequence of the excessive theorization and dogmatism of our design school).
            1. yehat
              yehat 22 January 2018 15: 17
              +1
              Well, the Germans, after applying Ferdinand near Kursk, put 2 machine guns at him.
              so self-propelled guns or tanks or horseradish - it doesn’t matter.
            2. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 22 January 2018 19: 49
              0
              Quote: tchoni
              a) Reach targets located significantly above and below the tank. At large vertical (positive and negative) guidance angles.

              but how many are large and most importantly why so many?
              1. tchoni
                tchoni 22 January 2018 20: 12
                0
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                but how many are large and most importantly why so many?

                So much so that they had to put the tunguska and shilka in support of the tanks.
                1. igorka357
                  igorka357 23 January 2018 14: 57
                  0
                  To do this, change the tactics of urban battles!
        3. Krasnoyarsk
          Krasnoyarsk 23 January 2018 09: 48
          0
          Quote: Now we are free
          DU ZPU for such a supernova tank as "Armata" should definitely be 12 * 7 and not 7 * 62. The battles in Syria have clearly shown this (watch a video from an interview with CAA tankers). In addition to the fight against helicopters / planes / drones (in the sky), he is much better at dealing with martyrs / tayotachanki / upper floors of buildings (on the ground). It would be possible to put even 12 * 7 and 14 * 5 KPVT ... Well, KPVT will definitely easily solve most of the problems that you should not pay attention to the main gun ...

          And even better 30 mm gun, and even better 57 mm. Why trifle? And it seems to me that 7,62, but very fast-firing. But even better - you need to ask the tankers who went through Chechnya, or Afghanistan, again Syria. They understand this question better.
          1. igorka357
            igorka357 23 January 2018 15: 02
            0
            I’m not a tanker, but I can say for their brethren that it’s better not to carry out such operations at all, at least under such command, and they all knew that there were no two RAPs out of the question ... and the intelligence warned that against 18-19 year old boys there will be bearded uncles with grenade launchers ...! But the answer was only "That is not it, you comrade lieutenant are carrying this .. everything will be like in a movie" .... And when they burned the first armor, so they clutched their heads .... like intelligence did not finish, blinked ... and all our pieces of paper disappeared somewhere ... I'll go drinks
      4. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 22 January 2018 16: 49
        0
        Quote: Scoun
        Quote: Shurik70
        Nonsense. Machine gun in a remotely controlled module.

        And what exactly is the nonsense?
        In the fact that now, in fact, 7,62 or in the fact that this is not enough for the tank, or nonsense in the fact that the tank is not currently standing at 12,7.


        The nonsense is that the breakthrough tank so badly needs a different machine gun caliber.
      5. Juborg
        Juborg 22 January 2018 17: 53
        0
        You are the same Scoun specialist as the author of this fiction and similar. I think a real specialist knows better than all of us sitting in comfortable chairs and reading what analysts or grief experts write on the net. Military tests will show what is needed and certainly not for us to decide or advise.
        1. igorka357
          igorka357 23 January 2018 15: 04
          0
          I'm in the chair right now ... only a crutch is nearby, not all the same as you, always sitting in the chair!
      6. Oleg Dudka
        Oleg Dudka 23 January 2018 08: 31
        0
        nonsense at all. "experts" stupidly did not notice the paired PCVT ... and do not care what to put in the module.
    2. RASKAT
      RASKAT 22 January 2018 16: 09
      +2
      It has a very weak machine gun armament - just one machine gun, and even that caliber 7,62-mm
      I’ll tell you from personal practice that in a battle no one will shoot from a machine gun, they will banish from a gun and will not even think. So much more reliable. Get the famous ANNA NEWS videos about fights in Jobar and Damascus. Of the guns they land almost at point blank range, the machine gun for as many as.
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 22 January 2018 19: 53
        +2
        Quote: RASKAT
        Get the famous ANNA NEWS videos about fights in Jobar and Damascus.

        Here they just show
        1) what to get out of the tower for firing from Soviet tank turret machine guns - no one will
        2) that to shoot in the city from any machine gun is useless for any modern house is a bunker
        3) that the tank needs large pickup angles approximate angles from -10 ...- 20 to +80 ... + 90

        So their video is not proof of the superiority of the 125mm gun, but proof of the lack of suitable weapons.
        1. igorka357
          igorka357 23 January 2018 15: 08
          0
          Listen dear, do not compare when a machine gun or a tank gun will look at you for 200-300 meters ... when a machine gun will look at me, I won’t even hide much, another thing if the barrel is deployed at you ...
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 23 January 2018 22: 58
            0
            and what's your post? what were you trying to say?
    3. max702
      max702 22 January 2018 23: 22
      0
      Che to be wise then? Put the era and business then .. Anyway, the crew commander is not clear what is busy, so let him look for targets through the module’s sight, you will look and get into someone, and defend the car with a handy 30mm + ATGM yes 7.62 ...
      1. max702
        max702 22 January 2018 23: 42
        0
        you can
        but it’s possible
    4. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 23 January 2018 09: 30
      0
      Quote: Shurik70
      Nonsense. Machine gun in a remotely controlled module.
      It seems small, on the same nest they will put a larger caliber or larger trunks. Modular structure.

      And, in fact, why the machine gun for the tank? Stupid question. Well, of course, to fight the enemy’s manpower. And what, 7,62 can not cope with this? Why 12,7? To less ammunition? In addition, according to the new concept, tanks will accompany the BMPT.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 23 January 2018 10: 08
        0
        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
        Why 12,7? To less ammunition? In addition, according to the new concept, tanks will accompany the BMPT.
        Reply

        To combat the enemy’s manpower in light field fortifications in the firing sectors inaccessible to the main gun)
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 23 January 2018 23: 00
          0
          Quote: tchoni
          To combat the enemy’s manpower in light field fortifications in the firing sectors inaccessible to the main gun)

          And why do you need artillery? it will be both cheaper and more efficient.
  2. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 22 January 2018 13: 19
    +4
    as soon as vehicles begin to enter the troops, tankers will immediately demand reinforcing machine-gun weapons.
    As soon as they begin to act, then it will be possible to talk on this topic. And what do field tests show?
  3. Mih1974
    Mih1974 22 January 2018 13: 22
    13
    The phrase “anti-aircraft machine gun” itself is alarming. Who can bring the number of aircraft shot down by tank machine guns (preferably by class and make)? Well, to hell with helicopters and attack aircraft, let's say you are in a tank and want to fire enemy machine guns at the enemy - to begin with, “how did you get to this”. Yes, yes, I remember how in Ossetia our tankers in Tskhenval in the last attack (the peacekeepers and women were withdrawing), the duties were generally “without a nail” and the Georgians simply fled. Although they can also be understood, the RPG or the Musha that’s going on your forehead will not even scratch. But in more facts of the use of tanks now in Ukraine and Syria - a machine gun is almost never used, they prefer to plant a land mine without ceremony good . That is, by and large, a machine gun for a tank is a tribute to traditions. And if we recall the "terminators" adopted for armament and the fact that the "tank should not act in isolation from other parts," then, in general, an extra device. I suppose that the 7.62 machine gun was left for those rare cases when it can play a role, but once again I insist - this is an unnecessary tribute to the "past wars". negative
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 22 January 2018 13: 41
      +4
      Quote: Mih1974
      I suppose that the 7.62 machine gun was left for those rare cases when it can play a role, but once again I insist - this is an unnecessary tribute to the "past wars".

      crush infantry with grenade launchers? isn't it luxurious?
      1. igorka357
        igorka357 22 January 2018 14: 15
        +5
        It’s the landmines that crush you, what world do you live in? While you are turning the tower and aiming to burn you, leaning out of the tower to the machine gun you will get a couple kg of lead ... always landmines at the expected points of fire ... or even a couple if you’re not sure ... shells, then the shaft ..! Remember, the grenade launcher always runs with a pair of machine gunners ... or even with a machine gunner, and a sniper, so I noticed a traffic in the window opening .. slap there is a land mine, and there is no opening!
      2. Mih1974
        Mih1974 22 January 2018 14: 23
        +4
        I recommend - review the video from Syria using tanks and try to find machine gun firing moments there laughing
        1. kirgiz58
          kirgiz58 23 January 2018 00: 07
          +1
          Quote: Mih1974
          I recommend - review the video from Syria using tanks and try to find machine gun firing moments there

          And you try to give target designation to an infantry or a neighboring tank from a cannon. It will turn out, but BC is not infinite. I even showed the Gradov supporting battery a burst of tracers with a burst of fire and they snapped quickly.
          1. igorka357
            igorka357 23 January 2018 14: 54
            0
            How much BK “fuel oil” is there, I don’t remember something like 20-25 .. we scored fifteen landmines for sure .. we rumbled through all the suspicious windows, and no one ... I never said about the fact that the shells are not infinite ... and how many lives they saved, and even if only one ... then all the tons released were worth it !!!! You forgive me how Gradam showed the line, from which they shot the line, we had BMKs five or eight miles .. well, with all the desire you will not show tracers, it’s strange you somehow write ... very much!
            1. kirgiz58
              kirgiz58 23 January 2018 23: 18
              0
              Quote: igorka357
              How much BK “fuel oil” is there, I don’t remember something like 20-25 .. we scored fifteen landmines for sure .. we rumbled through all the suspicious windows, and no one ... I never said about the fact that the shells are not infinite ... and how many lives they saved, and even if only one ... then all the tons released were worth it !!!! You forgive me how Gradam showed the line, from which they shot the line, we had BMKs five or eight miles .. well, with all the desire you will not show tracers, it’s strange you somehow write ... very much!

              Forgive me, but reading your post, I remembered an army bike. "There are three types of infantry: winged, marine, and stupidly.ry.loy." (with) smile Have you read my post? Where did I forbid to shoot high-explosive windows at the windows? Duvalls himself fell down with a cap on a high-explosive action. I'm talking about target designation for infantry and neighboring tanks wrote. And BMKi even brought me with a word, they supported me and stood 500 meters from the foot of the mountain with my position, so they saw the tracks very well and unfolded the packages in one second, covered the spirits behind the crest of the mountains (intelligence left to look at the spare parts of donkeys and PU nurses ) To muffle the pain of the third type of infantry, I’ll say to myself: the tankers have 30cm. forehead, the rest is the back of the head. laughing
              1. igorka357
                igorka357 24 January 2018 09: 13
                0
                That is, the spirits were behind the crest of the mountains, you showed the direction with tracers, and the hail soaked all the spirits .. behind the crest of the mountain? A very instructive fable .. And if anything, I'm not from the infantry!
                1. kirgiz58
                  kirgiz58 24 January 2018 17: 28
                  0
                  Quote: igorka357
                  And if anything, I'm not from the infantry!

                  And so similar. tongue
        2. Simargl
          Simargl 23 January 2018 10: 56
          0
          Specially looked.
          In the city - not a lot of sparks are shot, in the field - on the contrary.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 January 2018 14: 58
      +1
      Quote: Mih1974
      The phrase “anti-aircraft machine gun” itself is alarming. Who can bring the number of aircraft shot down by tank machine guns (preferably by class and make)?

      In this case, the designation "anti-aircraft" means, rather, IOC.
      EMNIP, in 1944, according to the results of tests of anti-aircraft installations from airborne defense systems to IS and ISU, the conclusion was made: for air defense (i.e. firing at aircraft) the installation is unsuitable, nevertheless, it must be used as anti-aircraft - for firing with large air defense when fighting in the city.
    3. yehat
      yehat 22 January 2018 15: 20
      0
      the tank, despite all attempts to use it integrated, still comes off and often acts alone. We’ll not destroy the mess. Therefore, weapons must comply.
      There are exceptions like leopard-1, which, in principle, acted only inside its defense - that’s why he didn’t really need a machine gun.
    4. Art
      Art 22 January 2018 17: 13
      +4
      Let’s say I’m a tank commander, I have this module, and inspecting the battlefield, and even in the city, having found the enemy (infantry) in the window of the house or in another shelter, I will immediately open fire for renewals so that the enemy does not have time to gasp at me. Well, then the gunner will cover the target with a land mine, and I will indicate to my own this way where the enemy is. But I agree better module is 12,7mm
    5. Grits
      Grits 23 January 2018 07: 29
      0
      The fact is that this machine gun is adapted not so much for suppressing infantry as for self-defense against shells. To combat the enemy’s approaching shells, it is planned to use the standard “Almaty” machine gun. On a tank such a system is used for the first time in the world. The T-14 will have a modernized Kalashnikov tank machine gun (PKTM) of 7,62 mm caliber. on an independent controllable module and aim at the target remotely by a tanker in an armored capsule, or using a computer according to the radar.
      That is, for the destruction of ammunition, its caliber is enough, and a lighter machine gun is easier to instantly aim at the target according to the radar.
      Although, an additional more serious machine gun would not hurt. Although the course, even paired.
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 23 January 2018 19: 10
        0
        Quote: Gritsa
        The fact is that this machine gun is adapted not so much for suppressing infantry as for self-defense against shells.
        What accuracy and rate of fire do you need to have in order to get into a scrap with a diameter of 40-50 mm flying at a speed twice as fast as the speed of the bullet of that machine gun?
        Even in anti-tank guided missile shooting with one barrel is not realistic.
    6. Simargl
      Simargl 23 January 2018 11: 05
      0
      Quote: Mih1974
      The phrase “anti-aircraft machine gun” itself is alarming. Who can bring the number of aircraft shot down by tank machine guns (preferably by class and make)? Well, to hell with helicopters and attack aircraft, let's say you are in a tank and want to fire enemy machine guns at the enemy - to begin with, “how did you get to this”.
      The anti-aircraft gun is not the only one who works on planes and helicopters (how much did Shilka work on planes in Syria?), But with high elevation angles (the mortar is also an anti-aircraft gun wassat ).
      Recall what is included in the "body kit" for urban combat? Is the heavy machine gun in a sheltered turret also a dump?
    7. Nulgorod
      Nulgorod 26 January 2018 17: 10
      0
      What about drones? Tribute to future wars? Or already current? wink
  4. K-50
    K-50 22 January 2018 13: 23
    0
    The campaign "UVZ" cut the money planned.
    I explain. Each upgrade costs money, and not small, as a rule.
    Experts believe that no matter how powerful and accurate the main gun is, a large-caliber anti-aircraft gun and a coaxial machine gun can not be dispensed with. Something similar has already happened with another modern tank - the T-90MS

    Changing weapons at the “customer's request” can “raise the price of the" final product "is not bad at all. The fact that the" insufficient "armament of the Army of" effective managers "is of little concern for it. Our grandmother is FSE!
    Should I bother with the new “Pecheneg” for the paired with a gun is another question. Specialists, explain, pliz, how intensively is firing from it, that a new development was needed?
    In general, the "competent authorities" need to closely monitor such things as the re-equipment of equipment due to the heavy use that was not taken into account in the design, or the deliberate weakening of the performance characteristics by installing inappropriate weapons. recourse
    1. woron333444
      woron333444 22 January 2018 13: 39
      0
      If you are not in the know, then the price is taken from the car, and the hitch costs separately. And if they change the machine gun, then the price of one will be taken away, and the second will be added.
      1. K-50
        K-50 22 January 2018 13: 56
        +2
        Quote: woron333444
        If you are not in the know, then the price is taken from the car, and the hitch costs separately. And if they change the machine gun, then the price of one will be taken away, and the second will be added.

        This is clear. Work where will be done and by whom?
        At the factory, by factory workers, plus delivery to and from the factory, plus something else. How much is it. Out of our pocket, by the way. hi
        1. woron333444
          woron333444 22 January 2018 14: 17
          0
          We went to the troops, there was a special service at the factory.
          1. K-50
            K-50 22 January 2018 14: 18
            0
            Quote: woron333444
            We went to the troops, there was a special service at the factory.

            Is that before? Now how are things going with this?
            1. woron333444
              woron333444 22 January 2018 14: 20
              0
              Same. My son worked there. Only before and traveled abroad, but now only in Russia
              1. K-50
                K-50 22 January 2018 14: 51
                0
                Quote: woron333444
                Same. My son worked there. Only before and traveled abroad, but now only in Russia

                That is, "re-drill / brew" does not have to? what
                Honestly: fresh tradition, but hard to believe. Well, then Gods, if this is the case.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 January 2018 15: 01
      +2
      Quote: K-50
      The campaign "UVZ" cut the money planned.

      Since when did the plant independently decide on the armament of a tank that was developed not by initiative, but by order?
      What is spelled out in the statement of work is what was delivered. If there is no DUM with CCP in TK - what, is the plant to blame? wink
  5. Per se.
    Per se. 22 January 2018 13: 50
    +9
    Most experts appreciate the latest development, but it is believed that this "combat vehicle with a powerful 125-mm gun, has very weak machine-gun armament - just one machine gun, and that caliber 7,62-mm
    For a start, it would be good to decide what we wanted to get, creating a “platform” based on the 195 object, which has already passed the State tests, and which was rejected because it was called too expensive and difficult for conscripts ... A unique tank, which It was created for the transition to 152 mm caliber, turned out to be expensive and difficult, it was hacked up in April 2010 of the year, but to make the “platform” is no longer expensive, not difficult, and about conscripts forgotten. If T-95 (195 object) was estimated at 450 millions, which was a result of widespread use of titanium, the overall novelty of the project, then T-14 is estimated a little cheaper, about 400 millions, while the tank lost the main thing for which everything was started, powerful 152 mm gun, an auxiliary 30 mm automatic cannon and a pair of machine guns. If T-95 (195 object) had a weight on the order of 55 tons (with relief from titanium), then T-14 is comparable in weight to T-90, with larger dimensions, which can only characterize a weaker booking . So why for the garden town, getting something that has lost the meaning of a super tank, which is more expensive, more complex and larger than the T-95, without having a particular superiority in armament? Of course, the armored capsule, that's all that was essentially left of the project, and that was not the most important. Now questions on machine guns, and everything is natural, for the actual anti-tank SAU, just right, only if the floating and airborne Sprut is a worthy acquisition for the army and in particular for the Airborne Forces, then the need for such a T-90 raises more questions than answers, especially in the light of such a “golden fish” as a damp, expensive and complicated “platform”, with the monster mastodon BMP T-14, because of the “crossing” with which not in a small degree and spoiled the very idea of ​​the 15 object. It would be better to return to what it was all about. In Figure T-195 (95 object), if it were not for fools and traitors, this tank would already be mass-produced, and, if necessary, when checking time, its base could become a platform, as in its time the base T-195 / T-72, has become a successful base platform for a variety of equipment, from TOC and SAU to BMO-T and BMPT.
    1. K-50
      K-50 22 January 2018 14: 03
      +2
      The T-14 is comparable in weight to the T-90, with larger dimensions, which can only characterize a weakened booking compared to the T-95.

      Not quite right. hi
      You need to compare tower installations T-90 and T-14 and T-95. The armored volume of the tower is significantly reduced at Armata, therefore it is easier to get with the same reservation, or much better armored at the same weight. Plus, the 152 mm caliber gun is significantly heavier. Here is another "gain" in weight T-95.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 22 January 2018 14: 16
        +6
        On the T-14, the titanium remained only on the armored capsule, as compared with the T-95, this is a “budget” version, which means that it should logically become heavier with conventional armor while maintaining the quality of armor protection. If not, booking became thinner (and the replacement of 152 mm guns with 125 mm saves not tens of tons, moreover, 55 tons of T-95 is not the maximum value, but version-averaged). Finally, the protection and weight of the T-90, here looks more advantageous than that of the T-14. About the capsule. Here you can again recall the Omsk "Black Eagle" where it was not the crew that carried the armored capsule, but the automatic loader with a part of the ammunition, leaving the tank itself as an armored capsule, with enhanced armor protection and more comfortable conditions, with an individual evacuation hatch for each crew accommodation below the shoulder strap tower. Alas, the Omsk tank bankrupt in the 2015 year, having also hacked the project (640 object), but it was well spent for the anniversary Victory Parade, rivetting the crude, not accepted for service, equipment already assigned by the “platforms”, without mastering the industry, without checking the time.
        1. Simargl
          Simargl 23 January 2018 11: 11
          0
          Quote: Per se.
          riveting raw, not adopted equipment, already designated as “platforms”, without mastering by industry, without time testing.
          That is, if Omsk were not bankrupt, would the T-95 not be crude, mastered by industry and put into service? wassat negative
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 23 January 2018 13: 27
            0
            Quote: Simargl
            That is, if it had not been for the bankruptcy of Omsk, T-95 would not have been raw.
            Everything is logical, for capitalism, sir ... The T-95 tank was almost ready for 2010, but why did it have to, when the United States and NATO were friends, the war was presented only as anti-terrorist operations, and the army needed only a compact . Ideas with headsets-platforms bloomed with a special color under Anatolia Eduardovich, with his arrival, not even the army, but army officials became “buyers”, and the defense industry “seller”, and not only ours, but also Western manufacturers. At the same time, there was such an interesting “economy” when a finished tank is shown to have a bargain, and right there they allocate a billion rubles for OCDs and R & D under “headsets” from Armat 64, and to this, 2010 year, they saw loot, developing a vehicle for a platform that didn’t manifest itself, with a tank that was raped in an attempt to cross it in one building with a heavy BMP. Clever, probably too ...
            1. Simargl
              Simargl 23 January 2018 16: 12
              +1
              Quote: Per se.
              The T-95 tank was almost ready by 2010
              Practically - how much is this?
              T-14 in the parade was already able to ride, shoot. And even a few of them were made - installation party. Those. rolled it out for at least six months, i.e. it can be considered (with an interference fit - I have not visited the T-95 series) that the T-95 and T-14 are separated 4-4,5 years.

              Quote: Per se.
              with his arrival, not even the army, but army officials became "buyers", and the defense industry a "seller", moreover, not only ours, but also Western manufacturers.
              You probably didn’t notice, but it has been the case since very old times. But it was clearly manifested (more precisely, they began to tell us about it) - in the mid-90s! And Serdyukov has nothing to do with it!

              Quote: Per se.
              “saving” when they show a muzzle on a finished tank, and then they allocate it to OCDs and R&D under the “headset” from Armat
              What is fundamentally new in the T-95? And what's old in the T-14?
              Build a tank that is no different from its predecessors? What's the point?
              For me - Armata should have appeared earlier. But not with us, but with those who are fine with electronics and programmers.

              Quote: Per se.
              sawing loot, developing equipment for a "platform" that did not show itself, with a tank that was raped in attempts to cross in the same building with a heavy infantry fighting vehicle
              This is generally some kind of nonsense! What does the tank and infantry fighting vehicle have to do with it? There, the Israelis put the M-60 cancer and are not buzzing: they made a very good wunderwaffle.

              Quote: Per se.
              Ideas with headset platforms bloomed in a special color under Anatoly Eduardovich
              Come on! The global trend towards equipment unification is not merit of Serdyukov! Is it possible to say that he broke the ossified thinking of the old generals?
              And why is modularity bad? It was discussed here that a 7,62 mm machine gun is not enough.
              Now imagine that PUM is one for BMP (Kurganets, BMP-3, T-15), Companion, T-14, RTOs, Uranus-6 ... bad? They broke it on one thing - they took it off, stuck a new one, connected the connector ... that's it! Well and mass - it reduces the cost.
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 23 January 2018 18: 55
                0
                Quote: Simargl
                Practically - how much is this?
                The tank passed the State tests, if you know what it is, and the T-14 was rolling on Red Square without them, like the T-15, and the Kurganets, and the Boomerang. This show, public relations, spent so much money for the Parade that they could quite seriously add new armored vehicles, such as the upgraded T-90, tank division. Otherwise, thank you for your attention, you have written a lot and emotionally, but I suppose that it is more from a young age, and perhaps even a lack of army experience, than from your worldview in life experience, knowledge of the subject matter. Good luck to you.
    2. activator
      activator 22 January 2018 14: 25
      +3
      Quote: Per se.
      Per se.

      Regarding t95 and t14 I agree with you, but as for the octopus and t15, I don’t. Because I plug in a heavy, well-armored BMP is needed, but an easily armored landing octopus, here xs.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 22 January 2018 16: 26
        +3
        Quote: activator
        Regarding t95 and t14, I agree with you, but about the octopus and t15 not.
        I will try to give you my arguments, if possible. By "Sprut". There used to be such a tank, the PT-76, a "boat with a gun," but the car is reliable and successful, capable of solving a number of specific tasks, such as forcing water obstacles on the way, capturing bridgeheads. Having a "floating tank", especially for such operational units as airborne troops, is fully justified, especially since the BMD-4M here has become a platform for a whole family of vehicles, including such a tank-SAU as the Sprut. Now about the heavy BMP. What is the general concept of the BMP, its "chip"? In agility and versatility. It is most vividly demanded when marching throws and forcing water obstacles on the way. Those who have ever waited for ferries on the rivers in their cars will understand what they mean, as well as those who drank the hard, when crossing water barriers in the army. This is important, especially when it comes to the European theater of operations, the real war, and not anti-terrorist operations against militants using partisan tactics. What is a "heavy infantry fighting vehicle" is something that, firstly, loses universality, and according to individual specifications, will be weaker than a heavy armored personnel carrier, as a vehicle, and weaker, worse, as a specialized fire support and armor protection than BMPT . Conclusion, we need the classic BMP (the best BMP-3) for maneuvering combat, with the possibility of forcing water obstacles, and heavy systems "duplexes" on a tank base, such as BMO-T and BMPT, where heavy armored personnel carriers in the second line would perform the role of transport, well-protected and armed BMPTs could fulfill the role of specialized fire support, both of their tanks and infantry. Moreover, in this capacity, a heavy BTR is more logical to do not on the 8-10 paratroopers, but on the 6, as an assault group that can dismount faster, and defeating vehicles with infantry will give smaller losses. In addition, such an armored personnel carrier can be better protected, made smaller, under more comfortable conditions for the landing. In principle, the BMO-T or BTR-T (based on the T-55) could be a guide here. As for the KAZ, which some people are suffering from heavy infantry fighting vehicles, there are quite logical doubts about how the triggering of such a system will affect its infantry when dismounting, even more doubts, is sending a heavy infantry fighting vehicle with troops in the womb next to the tanks. So why do we need a BMP T-15, this a la "Maus", commensurate with the dimensions of a five-turreted T-35 tank? As a "police tank," as anti-guerrilla technique ... Maybe, but is it worth such a dressing, especially since the thickest BMP is not a bomb shelter, the infantry will still have to get out for battle, and the main defense is not so much thick armor, and in maneuver and competent use of technology.
        1. activator
          activator 22 January 2018 17: 46
          +2
          Quote: Per se.
          ov. Having a "floating tank", especially for such operational units as the Airborne Forces, is quite justified, especially since the BMD-4M here has become a platform for a whole family of vehicles, including such a tank self-propelled guns like Octopus

          The question is that now airborne forces are most often used as infantry with obviously weaker armaments and suffer serious losses from this and pump money into equipment that obviously will not be used for its intended purpose, I don’t see the point, especially since this equipment is not cheap.
          Quote: Per se.
          Now about the heavy infantry fighting vehicle. What is the concept of BMP, its "trick"? AT

          It is in order to bring the infantry as close as possible to a specific target location under fire. Let's say whether to run to the trench 500-1000 meters of roofing felts to land directly in the trench or nearby. And by and large, I especially do not see the difference between BMP-t and BTR-t.
          Quote: Per se.
          As for the KAZ, which some suffer from heavy infantry fighting vehicles, there are quite logical doubts about how the operation of such a system will affect its infantry during dismounting,

          During the landing of the KAZ, you can turn it off, and if the attack is from the front or from the side, then even with the kaz turned on, I think nothing bad will happen if the infantry is held behind the BMP.
          Quote: Per se.
          , even greater doubts, this is sending a heavy infantry fighting vehicle with a landing in the womb next to the tanks.

          If the reservation is like a tank, kaz then why not? I’m quite at home able to get to enemy positions, because a running infantryman is a good target for the defenders, and the damage from it to the enemy in the trench is practically zero.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 23 January 2018 19: 07
            0
            Quote: activator
            And by and large, I do not see much difference between bmp-t and btr-t.
            There is a difference, more powerful weapons are put on the BMP, the ammunition load increases, and this already automatically cannot but affect the overall weight characteristics. It is impossible to add anything without sacrificing anything in return, it is not “pumping” of the tanks in the global computer network toy. I repeat, if we are talking about a tank base, here in the form of a "BMP" there is a tandem of two vehicles, for transportation, with increased body armor (such as the BTR-T, BMO-T, on a tank base) and specialized fire, this is BMPT. It makes no sense to argue if you do not see prospects here and do not notice the difference. We will stay with our opinions, thank you for your attention.
    3. Mih1974
      Mih1974 22 January 2018 14: 31
      0
      You certainly know better, but what about the problem of switching to a caliber for which there are NO shells and guns at all? This is the time of the Second World War when, due to hopelessness, the howitzer was pushed into the tank’s chassis and received the SU-152. Also, not I, of course, have already written more than once about the problem with PUTRs because there is no such a large one and is not expected, well, or it is very difficult to push it due to its very large size.
      Not a specialist, but I read many times that the caliber 152 for tank shells is still considered prohibitively excessive.
      1. K-50
        K-50 22 January 2018 14: 55
        +2
        Quote: Mih1974
        This is the time of the Second World War when, due to hopelessness, the howitzer was pushed into the tank’s chassis and received the SU-152.

        You are not correctly informed. request
        For all tanks and self-propelled guns, artillery systems were developed specifically, and were not put "first caught". Moreover, they were developed specifically for the current task, and not "anyhow." Read books on this topic, and it has been discussed more than once on the "pages" of VO. hi
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 22 January 2018 15: 08
        0
        Quote: Mih1974
        This is the time of the Second World War when, due to hopelessness, the howitzer was pushed into the tank’s chassis and received the SU-152.

        There it was not so much a matter of hopelessness as a lack of production of the Br-2. Because GABTU and GAU wanted a self-propelled bunker fighter with a 152-mm TT-based cannon. And they designed it already from 1940.
        But on the one hand, the production of the Br-2 in 1942 died (for they did it in Stalingrad), and on the other - KV suspension and transmission are designed for a tank weight of 40 tons (from the official review of GABTU for the next ACS project based on HF). Therefore, the sturgeon had to be cut back, requiring the Design Bureau to put the ML-20S howitzer-gun into the cabin of a limited volume - and after six months of designing the future SU-152 was chosen from three projects. Transformed from a narrow-profile bunker fighter to a universal assault gun.
        1. Mih1974
          Mih1974 22 January 2018 15: 29
          0
          Let's be frank - booking with Su and the ISU is not at all "anti-dot". fool Maybe I don’t understand something, but just as we didn’t have a good 150 mm anti-tank gun then, and now it seems like (well, they don’t shout about it at every corner). negative
          Therefore, they pushed the guns from the howitzer, which actually decided at the same time the issue of ammunition, even if they were not specialized for fighting with armor, but because of the monstrous kinetic power and charge, they more than then ensured the task of destroying German equipment.
          Now, as it seems, there are no 152 guns (tank) and ammunition under it is also not visible.
          Yes, I’m a video article about the experiments of such shells, but it seems they didn’t pass a full run-in just because of the lack of guns.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 22 January 2018 16: 07
            0
            Quote: Mih1974
            Let's be frank - booking with Su and the ISU is not at all "anti-dot".

            60 mm for the SU-152 and 90-60 mm for the ISU in the frontal projection.
            Quote: Mih1974
            Maybe I don’t understand something, but just as we didn’t have a good 150 mm anti-tank gun then, and now it seems like (well, they don’t shout about it at every corner).

            Why do we need then did you need a 152 mm caliber PTP? What, "mouse" did go into the series? wink And for everything else there is MasterCard D-25 / D-10.
            Quote: Mih1974
            Therefore, they pushed the guns from the howitzer, which actually decided at the same time the issue of ammunition, even if they were not specialized for fighting with armor, but because of the monstrous kinetic power and charge, they more than then ensured the task of destroying German equipment.

            In the TK on a self-propelled 152-mm gun, on which the KV-14 was made, nothing was said about the fight against German TTs. What was needed was a heavy fire support vehicle for tanks and infantry, a mobile 6 "howitzer gun, compensating for the self-propelled base lack of normal traction in the Red Army for heavy ACs (however, then all ACs of the Red Army did not have normal traction) and had sufficient armor protection for direct fire ( for according to the experience of SFV and Stalingrad it was direct aiming that ensured the minimum time for “disassembling” the target with the minimum consumption of ammunition).
            The use of SU-152 in the role of anti-tank missile is a necessary measure. Especially if you recall the insignificant fact that the first few months in the BC SU-152 did not have BBS - they simply did not exist in nature.
            In 1943, even the B-4 was attracted to the VET - to set up the NZO and PZO on the path of the advancing tanks. As a result, one Ferdinand appeared on the account of 203 mm howitzers. smile
      3. yehat
        yehat 22 January 2018 15: 29
        0
        the situation in the tank guns is simple - you need a gun of a minimum sufficient caliber.
        someone thinks 125mm is enough, someone doesn't. 152mm guns have their drawbacks
        1. Mih1974
          Mih1974 22 January 2018 15: 36
          0
          Yes, and the two most obvious - ATGMs simply stop getting into at least some kind of assault rifle, well, they are very large for 152 mm. The second problem is small ammunition and this is already a complete anus. And so, Russian tanks are one of the "least ammunition-friendly" and all the more smarter they stop clogging the tank with shells to the eyeballs. Who does not do so has a great chance of "becoming a hero." negative
          1. yehat
            yehat 22 January 2018 15: 58
            0
            well with ammunition is not so scary.
            far from always a tank with 30 shells throws back, usually much less.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 22 January 2018 16: 08
            +2
            Quote: Mih1974
            ATGMs simply cease to fit into any automatic killing machine, but very large ones for 152 mm are obtained.

            To have something to compare: ATGM caliber 152 mm - this is the "Cornet".
          3. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 22 January 2018 20: 27
            +1
            Quote: Mih1974
            Yes, and the two most obvious - ATGMs simply stop getting into at least some kind of assault rifle, well, they are very large for 152 mm. The second problem is small ammunition and this is already a complete anus.

            and what 40+ pcs 152mm shots is not enough for you?
      4. Per se.
        Per se. 22 January 2018 16: 43
        +1
        Quote: Mih1974
        but what about the problem with the transition to the caliber under which there are NO projectiles and guns AT ALL?

        Well, no, there was such a gun as 2А83, which was put on the 195 object.
        The gun was developed by designers of the Ekaterinburg Plant No. 9. It was originally intended for the promising main battle tank of the fourth generation T-95. T-95 had portable weapons and a separate capsule for the crew, located in front of the hull. All processes, including the control of the course and the organization of the shooting, were automated. It was planned to finish the state tests of the T-95 and put it into the series in 2010. In the first year they were supposed to release 100 machines, then another 300. However, in the end, it was decided to abandon the adoption of such a complex product. The reason was that during the years of development the project was morally obsolete - outdated, despite the fact that no country in the world had ever planned anything like that .. The evil language claimed that General Popovkin’s then chief of armaments of the Russian Armed Forces proposed by the manufacturer.
        As for the shells, so with such a logic of economy, they would have fired their nuclei for a long time ... And, for 125 mm shells, there are T-72 / T-90 and T-80 tanks, and finally, an ACS like Sprut. it is necessary to begin with something, especially since the 152 mm caliber was chosen because the potential of the 120-125 mm guns was almost exhausted in front of promising types of armor protection. For the transition to 152 mm caliber and object 195 began to develop. Under the 2А83 gun, the entire volume of the tower, which had to be rendered uninhabitable, was gone, just as the armored capsule was a necessary measure to accommodate the crew. I already recalled “Black Eagle” above, and so, the automatic loader, separated into a tight capsule, rather than the crew, looks more preferable here, all the more so with 125 mm cannon (on the “Eagle” a more powerful tool was supposed, up to 140-152 mm ). For clarity, the scheme "Eagle" from the patent, the arrow on the automatic loader.
    4. yehat
      yehat 22 January 2018 15: 48
      +1
      about about. 195 very little information. I personally did not read anything except the general performance characteristics and pictures
      And where can I find a description of the ideas that were put into it?
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 22 January 2018 16: 53
        0
        Quote: yehat
        And where can I find a description of the ideas that were put into it?
        In the network there is information, as a last resort, take a look at my “Paskvili”, two publications (go to profile, publications). I do not pretend to the truth from the last resort, but it was not sucked out of my finger.
      2. Valery Saitov
        Valery Saitov 24 January 2018 13: 44
        0
        https://militaryarms.ru/voennaya-texnika/tanki/t-
        14-armata /
  6. _Jack_
    _Jack_ 22 January 2018 13: 56
    0
    Both 7,62 and 12,7 are needed both. The most correct option is to leave at the top of 7,62, paired with a 12,7 gun.
    1. Longin
      Longin 22 January 2018 14: 16
      +1
      What is this "option" based on, may I ask?
      1. _Jack_
        _Jack_ 22 January 2018 14: 25
        +1
        7,62 against infantry, 12,7 for heavier targets - conventional or lightly armored vehicles, the same infantry but behind the wall, a helicopter. And now it turns out you need to fire from the main gun on everything except the infantryman. And to put in the module only 12,7 is also irrational, the ammunition is much less and it makes little sense to spend 12,7 against the infantryman, for example, at 200-300m. From this point of view, the BMP-3 is much more diverse than Armata.
        1. Longin
          Longin 22 January 2018 18: 56
          +1
          And how do you command a 12,7 twin helicopter / low flying aircraft target to be lifted at a distance of less than 1500 m?
          Usually it is the twin infantry 7,62 that is effective in infantry. Accuracy is higher, guidance is more exact.
          Z.Y. Ammunition turret machine gun no less than coaxial. The box changes to the appropriate caliber.
    2. Lexus
      Lexus 22 January 2018 14: 39
      +3
      twin with a gun 12,7.

      The coaxial machine gun greatly weakens the frontal armor plate.
      1. Golovan Jack
        Golovan Jack 22 January 2018 14: 50
        +4
        Quote: lexus
        The coaxial machine gun greatly weakens the frontal armor plate

        This is what, excuse me, the way?
        1. Lexus
          Lexus 22 January 2018 15: 15
          +2
          This is what, excuse me, the way?

          1. Actually, embrasure (either in the frontal sheet (with us), or directly in the mask of a gun (western tanks));
          2. The need for a niche in the reserved space directly to accommodate the body of the machine gun, guidance mechanisms and ammunition.

          Paired machine gun PKTM tank T-90
          1. Golovan Jack
            Golovan Jack 22 January 2018 16: 08
            +4
            Quote: lexus
            1. Actually, embrasure (or in the frontal sheet (with us

            Enough, you have already won the contest (s)
            Show me the tank in the arsenal of the RF Armed Forces, in which a machine gun sticks out in a hole in the frontal armor.
            You’ll get tired of searching, I suggest.
            Moreover - such a machine gun can not be called "coaxial". And it is called, EMNIP, "course".
            That's about as yes
            PS: try to read less Vika, she will teach you bad.
            1. Lexus
              Lexus 22 January 2018 16: 23
              +2
              Show me a tank in the arsenal of the Russian Armed Forces, in which a machine gun sticks out in a hole in the armor.

              Then rub your eyes and look again at the photo in my answer.
              On this, I no longer see the point of proving anything.
              1. Golovan Jack
                Golovan Jack 22 January 2018 16: 51
                +3
                Quote: lexus
                Then rub your eyes and look again at the photo in my answer

                Quote: lexus
                embrasure (or in the frontal sheet (with us)

                There is no "embrasure in the front sheet" in the photo you provided..
                Quote: lexus
                On this I see no more sense ...

                Yes, I, in general, also laughing
              2. yehat
                yehat 22 January 2018 17: 24
                +2
                this is not a machine gun, but an Air Pressure Receiver (LDPE) for measuring the speed of a tank. tank flying laughing
        2. yehat
          yehat 22 January 2018 15: 40
          +2
          the armor gets tired of holding it and weakens continuously)))
  7. Lexus
    Lexus 22 January 2018 14: 36
    +2
    With "Armata" work is still - no end. But stopping is like death. We need to maintain our leadership in tank building. We have too many "sworn friends" and they are not asleep.
  8. _Jack_
    _Jack_ 22 January 2018 14: 44
    0
    As it is now, Armata needs BMPT in support of
    1. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack 22 January 2018 14: 51
      +4
      Quote: _Jack_
      As it is now, Armata needs BMPT in support of

      Exactly.
      And she needs refueling, lubrication ... and competent crew.
      1. Mih1974
        Mih1974 22 January 2018 15: 39
        +1
        I support. It’s already lifted up to “admire” on the video how barmel men burn tanks standing in front of exhibitions like in Syria. negative Actually, the Syrians with such a mess tactic almost swept the country. Do not begin to put things in order and supply them with equipment - already the whole country was under the “blacks”.
      2. yehat
        yehat 22 January 2018 15: 43
        +1
        Not only
        We need a completely different logistics, more attention to the relocation of cars,
        so that they don’t go to write-offs en masse. Need a new tactic. New technical support for the battlefield - reconnaissance, target designation, etc.
        And the manual is not visible to be scratched.
    2. Alexey-74
      Alexey-74 22 January 2018 15: 36
      0
      in what form? I wonder where you already managed to break it in ....? and immediately point out the flaws ....
  9. Kolin
    Kolin 22 January 2018 14: 50
    0
    The T-14 has two machine guns.
    1. _Jack_
      _Jack_ 22 January 2018 15: 51
      +2
      In the tank descriptions, yes -
      “Machine-gun armament consists of an anti-aircraft installation with a Kord machine gun, controlled remotely by a commander or gunner, and paired with a PKTM gun. The Kord anti-aircraft machine gun is mounted in its own robotic tower, integrated with a tank’s AFAR radar, thermal imagers and is capable of striking at distances up to 1500 "even high-speed targets, therefore, in addition to the air defense function, it is integrated into the active protection system of the tank."
      In fact, in all the videos and photos in the remote control module is 7,62 mm, and paired with a gun is not visible at all.
  10. Berkut24
    Berkut24 22 January 2018 14: 55
    +3
    And there’s nothing to argue about. The tank was made under the technical specifications of the Ministry of Defense. 7,62 not the designers because of their Wishlist screwed. They say they will screw something else - they will screw it. In fact, over the past 30 years I do not remember that a tank machine gun was used in aviation. And he is hunting with a machine gun on a manpower seated behind a wall - what to play in a guessing game. But it is treated with a high-explosive shell. So 7,62mm can and really is enough to chase targets across the field. In Syria, machine guns are generally removed from the tower and used on the ground.
    1. _Jack_
      _Jack_ 22 January 2018 15: 00
      +2
      In Syria, they are being removed from the tower because the shooter on the tower is an excellent target and no one is reluctant to die, but if he is in the remote control module, then a completely different song
    2. tchoni
      tchoni 22 January 2018 15: 10
      +4
      Quote: Berkut24
      . In Syria, machine guns are generally removed from the tower and used on the ground.

      According to the Syrian tankers, this is done due to the lack of these guns at these machine guns, and sticking out waist-high with snipers is not kosher)))
    3. yehat
      yehat 22 January 2018 15: 30
      0
      machine guns in general have become few
    4. aKtoR
      aKtoR 22 January 2018 16: 52
      +1
      What about TK
      It should be noted that no one has seen him from the forum ...
      In the TK, it is not rare that the equipment is equipped with this or that volume ....
      We see no serial machine. Some systems will not yet stand on a military series, not to mention the released small military series ...
      Over time, everything will be and, I think, large-caliber machine gun also in the module ...
      1. Berkut24
        Berkut24 22 January 2018 18: 15
        +1
        What about TK
        It should be noted that no one has seen him from the forum ...

        In government orders, the rules are such that the developer has little chance of "losing weight." The Ministry of Defense will not pay for an additional "bow." Remember the story about BMPT, when the Moscow Region said that it didn’t order it, the state program did not provide for money, and this was not provided for in the structure of the Ministry of Defense either. And the fact that we have just ordered a little is not from the needs of the Moscow Region, but to help UVZ in its sales, and I will not be surprised that the cars will be in the hands of the Iranian or Lebanese militia in Syria.
        1. aKtoR
          aKtoR 23 January 2018 04: 52
          0
          Theoretically, that's right. Practically, there are additions to the TC.
          What kind of machine gun caliber can we talk about if the gun still doesn’t have regular projectiles and there are still no separate systems on the military series in 100 machines ...
          1. Valery Saitov
            Valery Saitov 24 January 2018 13: 38
            0
            Everything is.
            For the 2A82-1M gun, new ammunition was developed: BPS "Vacuum-1" (900mm), as well as "Telnik" (it can be remotely detonated at any point on the trajectory) and URS 3UBK21 "Sprinter". The T-14 will retain the ability to fire guided missiles through the gun barrel. Shooting will be carried out by Reflex-M missiles.

            For some experts, the gun gauge of the new tank raised certain questions. Say, the tank is new, and the gun has the same firepower as the old cars. However, according to the manufacturers, the new gun and new ammunition, having the same caliber, will be more effective.

            The T-14 tank is equipped with Kord anti-aircraft machine guns, which can be remotely controlled by a tank commander or gunner, as well as a PKTM machine gun paired with a cannon. The Kord machine gun will be adapted to destroy enemy shells and missiles.
            1. aKtoR
              aKtoR 26 January 2018 21: 23
              +1
              firing tests of shells have not yet been done however. Not even ordered for individual types of prototypes.
              with undermining at any distance - tra-la - it’s too early to talk about it - not all the components of the system have been developed yet (not made, not developed
  11. moscowp
    moscowp 22 January 2018 15: 21
    0
    Anti-aircraft machine gun in the tank ... whom to hit gathered with this machine gun?
    1. Simargl
      Simargl 23 January 2018 11: 39
      0
      Remove cats from trees.
      Or barmaley from the upper floors.
  12. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 22 January 2018 15: 34
    +1
    I think it's too early to start making possible comments on the T-14. Personally, I think that the combat module with a machine gun will be interchangeable, and the ability to install different models and calibers on the tower.
  13. Stone
    Stone 22 January 2018 15: 46
    0
    On the T-14, to add the 30 mm cannon to the main cannon, in principle, on the BMD-4 they did it, to combat the lightly armored targets and individual fighters of the enemy with ATGM would be just that. But BMPT or T-15 should be equipped with a 57 mm cannon and add radar to them to deal with enemy helicopters and drones. Moreover, as practice shows, anyone can have drones.
    And 7,62 vryatli will be effective even against fighters with RPGs.
    1. Valery Saitov
      Valery Saitov 24 January 2018 13: 33
      0
      Taken in Yandex.
      The gun is equipped with a barrel bend sensor. In the future, serial production vehicles may install 152 mm guns.
      The T-14 tank is equipped with Kord anti-aircraft machine guns, which can be remotely controlled by a tank commander or gunner, as well as a PKTM machine gun paired with a cannon. The Kord machine gun will be adapted to destroy enemy shells and missiles.
  14. Grigory_45
    Grigory_45 22 January 2018 16: 11
    +1
    “it has very weak machine-gun armament - just one machine gun, and that one is 7,62 mm in caliber” - where did the “experts” get it that there was no coaxial machine gun on “Armata”? Spawn has always been, from the first machine - PKTM. And as the anti-aircraft were going to screw up, as soon as the remote-controlled installation passes the test
  15. Conserp
    Conserp 22 January 2018 16: 14
    +1
    has a very weak machine gun armament - just one machine gun

    If he does not have a coaxial machine gun, then why was an embrasure made on the tower in front of the right?
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. alex123Hay
    alex123Hay 22 January 2018 16: 23
    +2
    The T-14 tank has 2 machine guns, not 1
  18. Falcond
    Falcond 22 January 2018 18: 16
    +1
    The news is a bit of strange content, and that's why !!!
    The T-14 has been under development since 2009, and today not only one vehicle has been produced, but several dozen (from separate sources).
    The tank is currently undergoing military tests! So why is he going through them ??? So that when the tankers begin to enter the troops in series, they say that the machine gun is not the right one or the sight is unsuitable ...?
    From the phrase "is the subject of controversy among experts of many countries, writes the Bulletin of Mordovia" a reasonable question arises - what experts and from which countries did the journalist from Mordovia take into account when writing this article ??? It feels like for the sake of a "red word" blurted out !!!! Does he even know what stages the technology goes through before entering the troops ???? In this matter, the opinion is important first of all of those who develop Armata and those who have to operate it .... (of course, with the study of foreign experience) !!!
    And since there are experts with their opinions, it is advisable to settle such issues before entering the troops, which is usually done !!! And not how the journalist from Mordovia paints this process!

    PS I heard a ringing ...
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 22 January 2018 21: 10
      +1
      Quote: FalconD
      And not how the journalist from Mordovia paints this process!

      Exactly, the journalist from Mordovia himself invented, passed off his notion as the opinion of experts, he himself concocted a "sensation". Don't you really believe in our designers? Believe me, there are still people. which. regardless of ranks and shoulder straps. can say: "guys, you are not doing it! We have suggestions!" Two machine guns on "Armata", Kord will be anti-aircraft in the new installation
  19. Chever
    Chever 22 January 2018 19: 12
    0
    And what, a long time to remake a 12,7 mm machine gun?
  20. internal enemy
    internal enemy 22 January 2018 19: 15
    0
    Yes, they will not produce this tank, three years have already passed as shown at the parade, everything will remain on paper and there is nothing to discuss here
  21. Metallurg_2
    Metallurg_2 22 January 2018 20: 06
    +1
    Set down a fluff of 152 millimeters - a carriage allows. And we have 152-mm shells, I think in stock not less than 125-mm. And about the strength of the 152-mm disc, as it were, “St. John's wort” will say. He can break firewood at the expense of only one kinetic energy.
    1. Valery Saitov
      Valery Saitov 24 January 2018 13: 31
      0
      Taken in Yandex.
      The gun is equipped with a barrel bend sensor. In the future, serial production vehicles may install 152 mm guns.
      The T-14 tank is equipped with Kord anti-aircraft machine guns, which can be remotely controlled by a tank commander or gunner, as well as a PKTM machine gun paired with a cannon. The Kord machine gun will be adapted to destroy enemy shells and missiles.
  22. Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 22 January 2018 20: 53
    +1
    In my opinion, it is best to place an automatic grenade launcher with remote control. It would be more convenient for them to mow down infantry. A 12,7 machine gun is already weak for fighting light armored vehicles, but it’s already too weak for infantry to shoot down a helicopter? —Not one known case, so I personally don’t see the point in it.
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. Old
    Old 22 January 2018 22: 15
    +1
    Perhaps the heads of designers are currently occupied with more important problems. It comes to machine guns.
  25. Tektor
    Tektor 22 January 2018 22: 46
    +1
    I would put there a 40 mm grenade launcher with remote detonation of grenades and a range of 3-4 km with the possibility of working in mortar mode and in anti-aircraft mode.
  26. Grits
    Grits 23 January 2018 07: 16
    0
    Here are the weapons of the BMP-3
    100 mm trigger gun
    30mm automatic twin gun
    Machine guns PKT 7,62x54: 2 coursework in the hull and 1 coaxial with guns in the tower.
    It turns out that with the exception of the gun, the BMP is armed in comparison with the T-14 tank just like a beast.
    1. Valery Saitov
      Valery Saitov 24 January 2018 13: 29
      0
      Taken in Yandex.
      The T-14 tank is equipped with Kord anti-aircraft machine guns, which can be remotely controlled by a tank commander or gunner, as well as a PKTM machine gun paired with a cannon. The Kord machine gun will be adapted to destroy enemy shells and missiles.
  27. Polkovodetz
    Polkovodetz 23 January 2018 09: 42
    0
    The author of the article apparently did not bother to sort out the issue.
    In terms of armament, the T-14 is completely analogous to Soviet / Russian vehicles. The 125mm cannon-launcher, the rifle-caliber machine gun coaxial with it (there is a rectangular embrasure to the right of the gun barrel) and the 12,7mm caliber remotely controlled. Everything is like its predecessors.


    A pinch of private considerations.
    Confuses the design of the commanders connected together and the panoramic sight. Given that the whole structure is shifted to the starboard side and is strongly shifted back, it seems that the machine gun has a large dead zone. The second consideration is that a machine gun during rotation will interfere with the operation of the sight, blocking the view.
    But these are just considerations, probably I don’t understand something.
  28. AleBors
    AleBors 23 January 2018 15: 10
    0
    Genry,
    My understanding has developed from the practice of use and personal observations in a database environment. And the paper will endure.
  29. Valery Saitov
    Valery Saitov 24 January 2018 13: 21
    0
    In February 2000, the head of the special design bureau of the Degtyarev plant (Kovrov), Alexei Isakov, announced that work had begun on the modernization of the Pecheneg machine gun into the Pecheneg-2 variant. According to him, the need for a serious improvement of the Pecheneg machine gun is due to the shortcomings identified during the military tests. According to military experts, the Pecheneg machine gun does not quite fit into the armored vehicles that are in service with the Russian Armed Forces; when shooting, he unmasks himself with a torch of fire from the barrel. These and other shortcomings will be eliminated in the modernized version of the machine gun. Alexei Isakov emphasized that the barrel life of the upgraded Pecheneg-2 machine gun will be approximately doubled compared to the base model. The barrel will be made of a new steel grade.
    1. Valery Saitov
      Valery Saitov 24 January 2018 13: 28
      0
      Taken in Yandex.
      The T-14 tank is equipped with Kord anti-aircraft machine guns, which can be remotely controlled by a tank commander or gunner, as well as a PKTM machine gun paired with a cannon. The Kord machine gun will be adapted to destroy enemy shells and missiles.
  30. serg.shishkov2015
    serg.shishkov2015 26 January 2018 06: 51
    0
    Thanks for the information, the first time I hear about it! And he went into battle like, for example, the A-20?
  31. ver_
    ver_ 26 January 2018 11: 49
    0
    Quote: Shurik70
    And I would have a couple more tanks and an attack helicopter.
    soldier

    ..and what about the * bath-laundry * battalion ..?