Military Review

Tank gun 2A82-1M "Almaty" - the most powerful of serial guns

98
The Russian most powerful T-14 tank will be equipped with the world's most powerful mass-produced tank tank high ballistic gun 2A82-1M.


Tank gun 2A82-1M "Armata" - the most powerful of the serial guns


The gun mounted on the Armata does not have the usual ejection device for removing the powder gases generated during firing. The problem of gas pollution is solved by introducing more efficient innovative technologies. The gun has an increased barrel life and can fire both existing and new ammunition, which will surpass the old ones in maximum flight speed and armor penetration.

Ammunition "Armata" will also include additional projectiles designed to destroy enemy personnel, and advanced guided shots.

As expected, 2А82-1М will eventually be installed on upgraded domestic combat vehicles.

Military experts note that at present only a few countries are capable of independently developing and producing tank guns. Moreover, domestic developments occupy leading positions in the world ranking.
Photos used:
Alexey Moiseev \ WG
98 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
    Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 26 January 2018 13: 00 New
    11
    Yes, with an uninhabited tower, the ejector was discarded.
    1. seti
      seti 26 January 2018 13: 06 New
      +3
      I remember there was a conversation that on the part (no more than 5 part) of the T-14 the 152mm gun will be installed. Everything is interesting in power.
      1. max702
        max702 26 January 2018 13: 16 New
        17
        Quote: seti
        I remember there was a conversation that on the part (no more than 5 part) of the T-14 the 152mm gun will be installed. Everything is interesting in power.

        There is no sense, the current 125mm shells perfectly hit all the goals existing today .. Why look for difficulties for yourself? According to the mind, 152mm would be useful in modern assault guns, especially in urban areas, but there is no need for a tank ballistic gun, as it were, on the contrary, the barrel is shorter, the elevation angle is bigger and the land mine is more powerful, but what will fly at a speed of 700m \ s and not 1700m \ s not minus but plus, and the barrel is cheaper and the resource is higher ..
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 26 January 2018 13: 50 New
          +2
          Quote: max702
          There is not the slightest sense, the current 125mm projectiles perfectly hit all the existing targets ..
          Why would people around the world say that 120-125 mm guns had almost exhausted their potential in front of promising types of protection, why would they actively start working on new 140-152 mm guns? The 195 object (T-95 tank) was created for the 152 mm gun, not the armored capsule, which resulted from the placement of the powerful 152 mm 2A83 gun in an uninhabited turret, plus an auxiliary 30 mm 242 automatic gun and a pair of machine guns. There is no point in the T-14 (by the way, made on the basis of the development of the T-95), if you leave the 125 mm gun on it, which can also be installed on the upgraded T-90, more compact, technologically advanced and cheaper. If you make a T-90 with a combat module, similar to the decision on the 640 object (Omsk Black Eagle), where not the crew carried the capsule, but the automatic loader with a part of the ammunition, especially.
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 26 January 2018 15: 27 New
            +7
            Quote: Per se.
            Why would the whole world begin to say that 120-125 mm guns have practically exhausted their capabilities against promising types of protection

            You can not consider the tank gun separately from the tank itself. It should be like this for a tank: its armament should ensure the defeat of enemy armored vehicles from a distance at which the tank itself for the shells of enemy cannons remains invulnerable. Each tank is a compromise between armament, defense, cost, mobility and several more, sometimes mutually exclusive factors. You can create a "shell armed with a hammer", or you can create a "dinosaur with a clapperboard" - but neither one nor the other will be "normal", effective tanks. The gun must be SUFFICIENT, so that the mass of the tank, its cost, etc. did not get out of permissible limits.
            1. Doliva63
              Doliva63 26 January 2018 15: 35 New
              +5
              "For a tank it should be like this: its armament must ensure the defeat of enemy armored vehicles from a distance at which the tank itself is invulnerable to shells of enemy cannons."
              If it’s not difficult, tell me where you read it. And then I always believed that to fight armored vehicles we did not have tank units at all, but tanks had a different task.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 26 January 2018 21: 56 New
                +5
                Quote: Doliva63
                then I always believed that to combat armored vehicles we did not have tank units at all, but tanks had a different task.

                The tank is a universal machine. Why, then, does he need a high-ballistic gun, if not for fighting armored vehicles? She has no other purpose (no, well, there are still anti-aircraft -
                but this is a different hypostasis laughing ) If ONLY to mow manpower and to dismantle dugouts not according to the drawing - something else, a mortar or a howitzer is more suitable.

                Well, continue the logical idea, paraphrasing, if the wording is not pleasant - "its armament should ensure the destruction of enemy targets from such a distance that the tank itself remains invulnerable or difficult to attack". not much has changed?
            2. Per se.
              Per se. 26 January 2018 18: 06 New
              +4
              Quote: Gregory_45
              It is impossible to consider a tank gun separately from the tank itself.
              There was a statement in the fleet - ships are being built for guns. It was under the new 152 mm gun that created the 195 object. Without the need for such a caliber, there was no point in tormenting the creation of a new car. Creating a "headset-platform" instead of finalizing the State tests of T-2010 (an 95 object) that has already passed to 195, a grandiose cut of the dough. On the platform from "Armata" they spent only on OCDs and R & D on the order of 64 billion rubles, lost years, giving birth to a defective tank against the T-95, and, having mastered the means well, designed other equipment on the crude, untested base, including the dubious mastodon T- 15. This is what we already had in 2010 in the T-95 tank.
              The main armament of the T-95 consisted of 152-mm gun 2А83 (developed by the design bureau of the plant No. XXUMX and VNIITM). The gun had an initial armor-piercing speed of the 9 sneak projectile and the ability to launch a guided missile through the barrel, the direct shot range was 1980 meters, and the BPS armor penetration reached 5100 millimeters of steel homogeneous armor. Ammunition was 1024-36 shots, ammunition types: BPS, OFS, KUV. Characterizing the additional armament, it is necessary to note the 40-30-2 X-mm cannon, which could be used as an alternative to the excessive expenditure of the main ammunition, the gun was mounted in the combat module with the 42-mm gun. At the same time, the automatic gun had its pointing drives, both vertically and partially horizontally, that is, in a certain sector the gun could be used independently. It was also assumed that one (two) 152-mm machine gun (7,62-mm machine gun) and the ATGM were supposed to be machine guns.

              Protection of a tank with a combat mass of about 55 tons provided for several levels. First, there are various camouflage type coatings, such as anti-radar capes and various deforming staining. Further, this is an active protection complex, for T-95 the Standard was developed by KAZ (combining the qualities of Arena and Drozd), while the Shtora-2 active optical-electronic countermeasures operated at the same time. The next level included a complex of dynamic protection, - a universal modular remote sensing station "Relikt" with elements of 4С23 (developed by the Research Institute of Steel, Moscow). Next, 81-mm 902B “Tucha” launchers for smoke and aerosol curtains, anti-nuclear protection equipment. Tank armor included various alloys, ceramics and composites. Finally, the T-95 crew itself had protection in the form of the already mentioned capsule, which was made of armor titanium, also titanium was used in many elements of the structure, reducing the weight of the tank. In addition, there was a set of protective uniforms tankers (such as "Cowboy").

              From the equipment of the tank, it is also necessary to mention the combat information system (developed by NPO Electromashina) with the aiming complex (developed by KMZ), infrared instruments, thermal imager (developed by NPO Orion) and radar. According to foreign data, one of the design variants of the tank was to install a laser device to destroy the optics of sights and enemy observation devices (LASAR).
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 26 January 2018 22: 01 New
                +5
                everything that you have listed regarding the "195 Object" also applies to the "Armata". I do not understand why you are unhappy.
                Is a 6-inch gun installed? Provided. Just as long as it is too powerful. The time will come - and they will deliver, and without too much rustle. Because the design is designed "for growth"
                1. Per se.
                  Per se. 27 January 2018 12: 39 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  everything that you have listed regarding the "195 Object" also applies to the "Armata". I do not understand why you are unhappy.
                  Refers, but not quite. The T-95 tank was almost ready, but in April 2010 of the year it was put on a cross, calling it expensive and difficult for conscripts. Due to the novelty of the project, and the wide use of titanium, indeed, the machine was estimated to be about 450 million. An adventure with “furniture set”, as I wrote above, only in technical developments of the “platform” cost 64 billion, T-14 itself, from which the main thing was created, for which the tank was created, 152 mm gun, is estimated a little cheaper, about 400 million, despite the fact that the titans have already saved, and despite the fact that the tank was all the more not for conscripts. In an attempt to “unify” the tank and the heavy BMP, the hull had to be changed, there were problems in the conflicting requirements for the tank and the BMP, which did not affect the better for the tank. If the T-95 tank was called too expensive, although it was a super tank that was worth it, then create a "platform", stupidity and sabotage on the basis of the T-14, and it’s not just the high price of such a platform, The fact is that the platform can only be mastered by industry, a well-established, technologically advanced and relatively cheap base. For example, as was the case in the family of T-72 / T-90-based vehicles, which even today could completely replace everything that was designed for Armata, spending money in development on a cat in a bag, expensive, complicated, not tested, not accepted for service. There will be a span with this theme, and the entire platform designed from the finger will fly. The same SAU "Coalition" is perfectly placed on the T-90 chassis, like the BMPT, SEM, there is no particular need to take power here from the release of the T-14 tank itself. If the T-95 tank could already be mass-produced, instilling fear and horror in our "partners", then the T-14 is still being tested, and it’s not a fact that you don’t have to give it up, flying with the wiser "platform." Seven years passed, fucking funds were spent, including raw “miracle platforms” released for PR at the Victory Parade in 2015, with funds from which it would be possible to make upgraded T-90, updating the fleet of armored divisions. I hope that the time will come when the hedgecutters from defense will answer for this adventure, and the UVZ will return to the topic of the T-95, as a super tank, a reinforcement tank, on the basis of which, after its development in industry and army saturation, platform, be such a necessity.
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 27 January 2018 15: 44 New
                    +4
                    I saw only that you personally very deeply like the "Object 195", and nothing more. Undoubtedly, it can be - the taste and color of all the markers are different. You have never been able to indicate why the 195th is QUALITATIVELY superior to “Armata”. You immediately complain that they supposedly cut down one project (although in fact they didn’t, but took most of the work from it, "and then you offer to quit it (that is, steal money and time), and spend money on resurrection again 195th? sad
                    Quote: Per se.
                    I hope that the time will come when the attendants from the defense will answer for this adventure, and the UVZ will return to the T-95 theme as a super tank


                    Quote: Per se.
                    The same self-propelled guns "Coalition" perfectly placed on the T-90 chassis, like BMPT

                    And what do they have to do with it? There, in fact, all the weapons and ammunition are in an uninhabited module, and it is installed on any chassis, at least fasten them on an armored personnel carrier of the corresponding carrying capacity. You yourself care about the powerful gun, immediately recalling the old chassis. By the way, in order to put the 195-mm gun on the 152th, I had to re-make the chassis!

                    Sorry, but apart from your personal opinion of the category “well, I like it, just because I like it”, you couldn’t answer anything intelligible
                    1. Per se.
                      Per se. 27 January 2018 18: 56 New
                      0
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      and immediately offer him to quit
                      Speech about the lost time, and return to the T-14 152 mm gun. According to T-95, it was already too late to "tears," the only thing that was in it was developing a UVZ, like T-14, and this experience can be recalled, applied.
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      well now i like it just because like
                      I explained everything to you, if you stubbornly don’t want or cannot understand it, you shouldn’t continue here.
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      And what have they?
                      If you are about ordinary workers, engineers and designers, then they are not to blame for what they could have done when they pulled the tank and the BMP. Gentlemen from the leadership should keep the answer, who traveled to Kubinka at one time and argued that it was necessary to quit T-95 debugging and tackle the idea of ​​a platform on a non-developed and expensive base.
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      By the way, to put an 195-mm gun on the 152, I had to re-do the chassis!
                      Are you talking about anything ?! The 195 object was created initially for the sake of the 152 mm gun, without which no one would have made this garden even then. As for “nothing intelligible,” so, unfortunately, I didn’t hear anything intelligible from you and did not hear anything new. Be healthy, Gregory.
                      1. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 27 January 2018 19: 30 New
                        +4
                        Quote: Per se.
                        and immediately offer him to quit
                        Speech about the lost time, and return to the T-14 152 mm gun. According to T-95, it was already too late to "tears," the only thing that was in it was developing a UVZ, like T-14, and this experience can be recalled, applied.

                        Well, do not pour. In addition, the experience of creation and testing was applied. When creating "Armata".

                        Quote: Per se.
                        well now i like it just because like
                        I explained everything to you, if you stubbornly don’t want or cannot understand it, you shouldn’t continue here.

                        Probably could not explain. Nothing intelligible to the question of what “Object 195” QUALITATELY exceeds “Armata”, because of which you are crying so much for it - you have not heard. Were given TTX, your admiration for him - but there was no main thing. Maybe at least right now?

                        Quote: Per se.
                        And what have they?
                        If you are about simple workers, engineers and designers,

                        no, not about them, but about the "Coalition" and the "Terminator". You made a cry, saying that they don’t need a special chassis, but “Armata” - they say, give it. So the 195th needed a new chassis (but they didn’t use it from the T-72/90, for example), because it no longer held the 152-mm gun (which was not a howitzer).

                        Quote: Per se.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        By the way, to put an 195-mm gun on the 152, I had to re-do the chassis!
                        What are you talking about ?! Object 195 was originally created for the sake of a 152 mm cannon, without which no one would then have fenced this garden.

                        Actually, this was captured above. So on the "Armata" seven-roller chassis - not a whim and not a fool of designers. She was also created under the 152-mm gun. So you adored gun. Why then did “Armata" not please with a gun so beloved by you? Just because they didn’t put her in the first place and showed her at the parade?
                      2. Per se.
                        Per se. 27 January 2018 22: 03 New
                        0
                        Nothing intelligible to the question than "Object 195" QUALITATIVELY surpasses "Armat"
                        The 195 object is superior to the T-14 by the fact that it was 152 mm gun and 30 mm automatic, it was better protected (weight 55 tons, while facilitated by armor titanium and composites), most importantly, it passed State tests and could start producing serially in the 2010-2011 year. What else do you have to repeat? About the "Terminator" and "Coalition", it is possible to produce them on the T-90 chassis, it will be much more reasonable. About "cry", I do not want to assume that this is your rudeness, I talk quite kindly with you, and I don’t owe you anything and I don’t owe anything. I wanted to hope that I communicated with an adult person related to the army or the production of tanks. Dixi.
                  2. Boris Chernikov
                    Boris Chernikov 28 January 2018 23: 40 New
                    +1
                    1) the t-95 did not finish state tests, but passed only factory tests, these are different things.
                    2) the price of one tank in 2010 was 450 million rubles, which means that now it would cost at least 500-520 million rubles ONE, which is why, by the way, a number of media outlets began to claim that the T-14 would cost half a billion rubles for one tank. UVZ has long been said that with bulk orders, the tank will cost 250 million rubles.
                    3) the caliber of 152 mm has been abandoned at the moment due to the fact that a larger caliber reduces the ammunition of the tank, but this does not mean that they abandoned the caliber of 152 mm, they are just working on the issue separately .. there was infa from Gurha that they refused, including because the current 152 gun has no big advantages.
                    4) My opinion is that the caliber of 152 mm needs to be developed, but primarily as a replacement for the Rapier VET with a self-propelled gun with 152 mm.
                    1. Per se.
                      Per se. 29 January 2018 12: 33 New
                      0
                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      t-95 did not finish state tests, and passed only factory tests, these are different things.
                      Maybe you are right. But, there was information that three copies of the tank were made, the first is an experimental factory copy, and two more copies, they were called No. XXUMX and No. XXUMX for state tests. State tests they passed. If the topic is from the 1 of the year, why not? The conclusion of the commission on the tank was positive, but there was a list of comments that should be eliminated. In particular, there were questions on the automatic loader, and, most importantly, on sighting complexes. In any case, it was wiser to bring the tank to mind then than to create a new "platform".
                      1. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 29 January 2018 12: 54 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Per se.
                        They passed state tests.

                        Your interlocutor is right - "Object 195" did not pass state tests. GIs were scheduled for 2010; in April of that year, the program was closed. I didn’t have time, sir ...

                        Now where do the legs grow from
                        Quote: Per se.
                        only after passing such tests the "object" gets its name, T-95, voiced by Igor Sergeyev

                        In March 2000, Minister of Defense Sergeyev did visit UVZ, and also let loose on the T-95, that gave rise to unbridled fantasies and idle speculation.
                        The name (index) of the equipment receives an appropriate decree. Can you give the number of the decree for assigning the "object 195" index T-95?
                        Leave the words of the Minister of Defense on his conscience. Do not suck out your finger and look for a black cat in a dark room, especially if it has never been there)
                      2. Boris Chernikov
                        Boris Chernikov 29 January 2018 23: 39 New
                        +1
                        ok, if the t-95 passed these mythical tests, why didn’t anyone see this tank in a combat body kit? Relatively more reasonable, aren't you, I’m not aware of the state of the project, then you used the operating time, the fact, and the fact that you "didn’t" , you need to understand that the basis was the experience of 20 years ago, i.e. the base itself was outdated without taking into account modern developments and technical capacities
                      3. Per se.
                        Per se. 30 January 2018 05: 45 New
                        0
                        Boris Chernikov.
                        OK, if the t-95 passed these mythical tests, then why hasn’t anyone seen this tank in a military kit?
                        What do you want to see "kit"? I have already said below, read about it (there is a full interview on the network), "Colonel General Sergei Maev played a special role in creating the tank of the future, Chairman of the Central Council of ROSTO (DOSAAF). From 1996 to 2003, he served as Chief of the Chief Automobile Department of Defense of the Russian Federation and led the development of the T-95 tank (OCR "Improvement-88"). The chief editor of "Rosinformbureau" Vyacheslav Prunov was able to talk with the patriarch of the Russian tank construction (interview 2013). "
                  3. Vkd dvk
                    Vkd dvk 1 February 2018 20: 08 New
                    0
                    Quote: Per se.
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    everything that you have listed regarding the "195 Object" also applies to the "Armata". I do not understand why you are unhappy.
                    Refers, but not quite. The T-95 tank was almost ready, but in April 2010 of the year it was put on a cross, calling it expensive and difficult for conscripts. Due to the novelty of the project, and the wide use of titanium, indeed, the machine was estimated to be about 450 million. An adventure with “furniture set”, as I wrote above, only in technical developments of the “platform” cost 64 billion, T-14 itself, from which the main thing was created, for which the tank was created, 152 mm gun, is estimated a little cheaper, about 400 million, despite the fact that the titans have already saved, and despite the fact that the tank was all the more not for conscripts. In an attempt to “unify” the tank and the heavy BMP, the hull had to be changed, there were problems in the conflicting requirements for the tank and the BMP, which did not affect the better for the tank. If the T-95 tank was called too expensive, although it was a super tank that was worth it, then create a "platform", stupidity and sabotage on the basis of the T-14, and it’s not just the high price of such a platform, The fact is that the platform can only be mastered by industry, a well-established, technologically advanced and relatively cheap base. For example, as was the case in the family of T-72 / T-90-based vehicles, which even today could completely replace everything that was designed for Armata, spending money in development on a cat in a bag, expensive, complicated, not tested, not accepted for service. There will be a span with this theme, and the entire platform designed from the finger will fly. The same SAU "Coalition" is perfectly placed on the T-90 chassis, like the BMPT, SEM, there is no particular need to take power here from the release of the T-14 tank itself. If the T-95 tank could already be mass-produced, instilling fear and horror in our "partners", then the T-14 is still being tested, and it’s not a fact that you don’t have to give it up, flying with the wiser "platform." Seven years passed, fucking funds were spent, including raw “miracle platforms” released for PR at the Victory Parade in 2015, with funds from which it would be possible to make upgraded T-90, updating the fleet of armored divisions. I hope that the time will come when the hedgecutters from defense will answer for this adventure, and the UVZ will return to the topic of the T-95, as a super tank, a reinforcement tank, on the basis of which, after its development in industry and army saturation, platform, be such a necessity.

                    You do not understand one, but the most essential thing- UNIFICATION. Which at times reduces the volume of spare parts in the troops, repair shops, the timing of the development of military equipment by crews, the nomenclature of fuel and lubricants, weapons, simplifies the organization of network-centric control of compounds of heterogeneous military equipment. and a lot, not yet described here. For example, a decrease in the cost of production of various military equipment due to an increase in the production of identical parts for different military vehicles.
                    Developing a unique, new thing is complex and expensive. But the development of a unified ruler is many times more expensive. What was done. And that will be unattainable for our potential "friends" for a long time to come. An absolutely correct decision was made to abandon an almost designed product when it became clear that this tank could not be a BASE for the RANGE.
            3. Moon reflection
              Moon reflection 27 January 2018 07: 48 New
              0
              Well, let's say a shell with a hammer is capable of something, if it acts from an ambush and has a good speed in order to quickly dump.
          2. Genry
            Genry 26 January 2018 15: 34 New
            +1
            Quote: Per se.
            There is no point in the T-14 (by the way, made on the basis of the development of the T-95), if you leave it with a 125 mm gun, which can also be used on the modernized T-90, more compact, technologically advanced and cheaper.

            Do you have a powerful gun that became an end in itself? How many times will you need it in your "work"?
            The experience of Syria shows that more ammunition is more important than an increased caliber. And the 100 mm gun is the most optimal for the main operation of the tanks.
            A tank is a breakthrough weapon, not a tracked anti-tank gun.
            During the attack, to destroy enemy heavy equipment, it is more profitable to use weapons from the secondary line of attack. It can be anti-tank systems (Kornet, Hermes) on a mobile platform (tracked, wheeled, flying, robotic), mortars or self-propelled guns, with guided projectiles, working according to the coordinates and laser targeting received from the participants of the first line of attack.
            1. Boris Chernikov
              Boris Chernikov 28 January 2018 23: 43 New
              0
              then all countries have long been using tanks with a caliber of 120-125 mm.
              1. Genry
                Genry 30 January 2018 13: 11 New
                0
                Quote: Boris Chernikov
                then all countries have long been using tanks with a caliber of 120-125 mm.

                This is because of the template concept that tanks can only be destroyed by tanks. The emergence of new types of weapons of destruction of tanks (missiles, guided missiles) has not yet affected the tanks themselves.
                1. Boris Chernikov
                  Boris Chernikov 31 January 2018 19: 56 New
                  0
                  The problem is that the tank MUST be able to destroy enemy tanks. A modern tank is destroyed by a caliber of 100 mm only when shot in the side.
                  1. Genry
                    Genry 31 January 2018 21: 46 New
                    0
                    Quote: Boris Chernikov
                    The problem is that the tank MUST be able to destroy tanks

                    Where did you get this?
                    Tanks must be destroyed by anti-tank weapons.
                    The task of the tank is to break through the enemy defenses. Destroy firing points and manpower. Most of the goals are all kinds of buildings adapted for defense.
                    The enemy’s tanks and high-quality fortifications can be destroyed by artillery from the second line of attack (rear grouping), by target designation from the attack line, using guided and simple shells of caliber 152mm (or higher) or missiles up to tactical ones. In urban areas, high-speed platforms with the Kornet ATGM can operate
                    Now we are talking about tanks with various quick-firing guns. Take for example 57mm. And you need to knock the enemy out of a long building: with its rate of fire of 120 rounds / min, quickly shoot the window panes on the lower floor and bring down the facade. All prepared positions are immediately destroyed.
                    You can very advantageously use a 100mm gun that allows you to have large ammunition and a fast automatic loader.
          3. Doliva63
            Doliva63 26 January 2018 15: 42 New
            +7
            “Why would the whole world begin to say that 120-125 mm guns have practically exhausted their capabilities ...”
            In the "whole world" they still don’t say that. It’s up to us to defend our borders, and not “the whole” world, and it’s up to us to decide what is needed for this drinks
            And they rush with Armata in order to declare the lack of analogs first, probably. For the car is raw in every way.
          4. max702
            max702 27 January 2018 00: 49 New
            0
            At least read this article, not to mention other materials ..
            https://topwar.ru/71089-otechestvennye-proekty-ta
            nkovyh-pushek-kalibra-152-mm.html
        2. demos1111
          demos1111 27 January 2018 10: 46 New
          +1
          I fundamentally disagree with you. A 152mm projectile makes it possible to use special ammunition (for example, there is no chance of fighting with China, for example.) But a 152mm gun will bring 15 such shells to the division, try to find out where they stand and how to storm them.
          Yes, all tanks with such guns are not needed, but one regiment in the division must be with 152 mm guns.
          1. ssergn
            ssergn 27 January 2018 13: 42 New
            +1
            But why sau and howitzers of the same caliber 152 do not suit all of you then?
          2. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 27 January 2018 16: 17 New
            +3
            Quote: demos1111
            152mm projectile makes it possible to use special ammunition

            But nothing that the tank accurately fires only DIRECT aiming? Well, not his howitzer, but a high ballistic gun! For the use of tactical nuclear weapons are more suitable self-propelled guns and MLRS, which can throw ammunition for 20 kilometers or more.
        3. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 27 January 2018 20: 53 New
          0
          It depends on what shells on Armata: unitary and separate.
          In order for OBPS to penetrate well today, the length of its “crowbar” must be at least 80 cm.
          In order for a cumm projectile to pierce well today, its caliber must be at least 150 mm
          That's all the requirements.
        4. Nikolay Dolgiy
          Nikolay Dolgiy 28 January 2018 04: 36 New
          0
          Washed away in the fact that the atomic shell can be charged with a 150-152mm gun, that’s the whole point.
          There are no such shells for 125mm cannons, we have not yet learned how to make atomic charges for such a caliber, but artillery has 152mm charges, that is, it will be quite simple to develop an atomic charge for a tank gun for 152mm (change the shell / shell).
          Therefore, the “West” when I heard about the 152mm gun on the “Armata” was shocked precisely because it was possible to stick an atomic warhead there.
      2. Incvizitor
        Incvizitor 26 January 2018 14: 10 New
        +2
        Well, at 152 it’s necessary to change the AZ, the tower, and probably the whole line-up, and also new shells on the conveyor ...
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 27 January 2018 17: 27 New
          +2
          Quote: Incvizitor
          Well, at 152 it’s necessary to change the AZ, the tower, and probably the whole line-up, and also new shells on the conveyor ...

          the whole layout does not have to be changed. Only change the turret (combat module)
      3. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 26 January 2018 15: 18 New
        +3
        Quote: seti
        I remember there was a conversation that on the part (no more than 5 part) of the T-14 the 152mm gun will be installed. Everything is interesting in power.

        In force, of course. A more powerful gun is being prepared for the future. Why put it now if you still satisfy the requirements of a 125 mm gun? So far, they are moving towards creating more effective shots (shells). As soon as this path has completely exhausted itself, they will put a larger-caliber gun. With increasing gun caliber, of course, ammunition and rate of fire will be reduced.
    2. Genry
      Genry 26 January 2018 15: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
      Yes, with an uninhabited tower, the ejector was discarded.

      This reduced energy losses and, accordingly, increased the power of the gun.
      1. Golovan Jack
        Golovan Jack 27 January 2018 17: 33 New
        +4
        Quote: Genry
        Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
        Yes, with an uninhabited tower managed to refuse the ejector
        This reduced energy loss and, accordingly, increased the power of the gun

        Yah? belay
        There is a tsifir some thread confirming this nonsense Your esteemed thoughts?
        Just - not the first time I hear this, but ask to confirm - either they are silent, or the plevstas begin request
        1. Genry
          Genry 27 January 2018 20: 59 New
          0
          Quote: Golovan Jack
          Is there a tsifir some thread confirming this nonsense Your dear thoughts?

          With a straightforward h̶a̶m̶l̶o̶m̶ I do not speak !!!
          1. Golovan Jack
            Golovan Jack 27 January 2018 21: 00 New
            +4
            Quote: Genry
            Quote: Golovan Jack
            Is there a tsifir some thread confirming this nonsense Your dear thoughts?

            With a straightforward h̶a̶m̶l̶o̶m̶ I do not speak !!!

            That is, tsifiri - no.
            And it is right. She can't be ... be yes
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 27 January 2018 22: 16 New
        +3
        Quote: Genry
        This reduced energy loss and, accordingly, increased the power of the gun

        Well, you refused to explain to us, unreasonable, how the refusal of the ejector allows you to increase the power of the gun? Do you know how an ejector works? What it starts, in fact, to work after the projectile leaves the bore?
        1. Captain Pushkin
          Captain Pushkin 27 January 2018 22: 53 New
          +1
          Quote: Gregory_45
          Gregory_45 Today, 22:16 ↑ New
          Quote: Genry
          This reduced energy loss and, accordingly, increased the power of the gun

          Well, you refused to explain to us, unreasonable, how the refusal of the ejector allows you to increase the power of the gun? Do you know how an ejector works? What does it begin to essentially work after the projectile leaves the bore?

          When fired, powder gases begin to fill a certain chamber through a hole in the barrel (after passing the bottom of the projectile past this hole) until the pressure in the chamber and in the barrel channel equalize. How can this process not affect the decrease in pressure in the bore and the decrease in the initial velocity of the projectile?
          1. Golovan Jack
            Golovan Jack 27 January 2018 23: 07 New
            +4
            Quote: Captain Pushkin
            How this process cannot affect ...

            Well no! The "process" certainly "influences" ...
            About the same as the weight of the crew on the speed of the tank yes
          2. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 28 January 2018 09: 24 New
            +1
            Quote: Captain Pushkin
            How can this process not affect the decrease in pressure in the bore and the decrease in the initial velocity of the projectile?

            Naturally affected. So miserable that even talk about it is not worth it. Or do you think that an ejector is a dimensionless barrel (like a "black hole") that instantly "sucks" all the gases from the barrel? laughing
            By the time the projectile passed the installation site of the ejector, he had already gained most of his speed, and the amount of gases discharged into the chamber of the ejector no longer significantly affected its acceleration. Give figures, how much, according to your theory, reduces speed? Then everything will become clear))
            1. Captain Pushkin
              Captain Pushkin 28 January 2018 11: 58 New
              +1
              Quote: Gregory_45
              By the time the projectile passed the installation site of the ejector, he had already gained most of his speed, and the amount of gases discharged into the chamber of the ejector no longer significantly affected its acceleration.

              I do not argue, the influence is not great, but it is not worth denying it.
              About "gained most of his speed." When designing guns and ammunition, the target is to create the optimal pressure of the powder gases in the barrel channel CONSTANT until the projectile leaves the barrel.
              This ensures the constancy of acceleration. Those. with constant acceleration, before passing through the ejector of the 2A82 gun, the projectile gains LESS than half its initial speed.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 28 January 2018 16: 25 New
                +1
                Quote: Captain Pushkin
                I do not argue, the influence is not great, but it is not worth denying it.

                Whether it is worth paying attention to it or not, it will become clear from the order of numbers. The second time I ask you a question: give the numbers, how much, according to your theory, does the speed decrease?
                Such statements were heard only "on the Internet", and their authors for some reason are embarrassed to indicate figures proving the detrimental effect of the ejector on the velocity of the projectile.
                The disadvantages of the ejector are known:
                - incomplete blowing of the bore as the nozzle hole of the receiver becomes contaminated with unburned powder particles;
                - low efficiency on guns with low ballistics (with low pressure of powder gases in the bore)
                and not a word about some significant reduction in the initial velocity of the projectile.
                1. Captain Pushkin
                  Captain Pushkin 28 January 2018 17: 06 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Gregory_45

                  0
                  Gregory_45 Today, 16:25 ↑ New
                  Quote: Captain Pushkin
                  I do not argue, the influence is not great, but it is not worth denying it.

                  Whether it is worth paying attention to it or not, it will become clear from the order of numbers.

                  Estimated, the volume of the ejector is about 10% of the volume of the bore.
                  The pressure drop in the channel from the ejector to the muzzle end is estimated to be from 3 to 5%.
                  The decrease in the initial speed of the BPS when using an ejector is estimated to be about 50-80 meters per second ..
                  This can be partially minimized by the selection of the combustion process of the powder.
                  Accurate numbers can only be obtained by having a pressure diagram in the bore in the pressure / time coordinates.
    3. Topotun
      Topotun 26 January 2018 17: 34 New
      +1
      Ugh, I did not immediately realize why there is no ejector ....
      1. Redfox3k
        Redfox3k 26 January 2018 23: 45 New
        0
        I generally would not understand the presence of it as such in an uninhabited tower.
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 27 January 2018 22: 24 New
        +1
        Quote: Topotun
        Ugh, I did not immediately realize why there is no ejector

        you still need to blow through the barrel, whether the BO you are living in or not. Purge the barrel solves the problem of not only reducing smoke, but also lowering the temperature in the BO and cooling the barrel, which increases its survivability. And it also eliminates the “reverse flash” - the retraction of hot gases through the opened gate into the BO, mixing them with air and ignition.
        If there is no ejector, it means that a forced purge was put on the "Armata" - from cylinders and a compressor.
        1. Golovan Jack
          Golovan Jack 27 January 2018 22: 35 New
          +4
          Quote: Gregory_45
          If there is no ejector, it means that a forced purge was installed at Armata - from cylinders and compressor

          Well, about the cylinders you ... bent ...
          As for the compressors - nobody canceled the supercharger on tanks ...
          "First ready for battle, supercharger on" yes
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 28 January 2018 09: 52 New
            +2
            Quote: Golovan Jack
            Well, about the cylinders you ... bent ...
            As for the compressors - nobody canceled the supercharger on tanks ...

            Do not confuse the HLF with the compressor? Pumping excess pressure into the compartment is one thing, pumping air through a compressor into the receiver (cylinder) is another
            Just try to “blow through” the barrel by supplying air from the compressor, rather than compressed air from the receiver)
        2. Captain Pushkin
          Captain Pushkin 28 January 2018 12: 49 New
          0
          Quote: Gregory_45
          blowing the barrel anyway

          The article mentions some kind of "innovative" way to purge the barrel.
          I suspect that this is the one that was used on the German TV Panther.
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 28 January 2018 16: 30 New
            +1
            Quote: Captain Pushkin
            "innovative" way to purge the barrel

            purging the barrel with compressed air pumped by a compressor is an innovation? Tady, I'm just scared for our tank industry sad
    4. Ilya_Nsk
      Ilya_Nsk 29 January 2018 13: 22 New
      0
      powder gases have a bad effect not only on people, but also on rubber, plastic, optics, etc. It is indicated that ".. The problem of gas contamination is solved by the introduction of more effective innovative technologies .."
      But the cannon needs a thermal cover, but for some reason it is not striking here .. Uneven barrel heating during precipitation is a problem that causes its curvature, moreover, the unmasking factor in the IR range.
    5. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 10 June 2018 21: 47 New
      0
      Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
      with an uninhabited tower, the ejector was abandoned.

      The French Leclerc gun also has no ejector - the gun is blown with compressed air. There was an opinion that the T-14 has a similar system. Of course, there is no crew in the tower, but there is nothing to do with powder gases there (they are unlikely to bring any benefit).
  2. NEXUS
    NEXUS 26 January 2018 13: 04 New
    +6
    Gunpowder would be new to us and no worse than Western ones ... then the effectiveness of our weapons would increase substantially.
    1. JD1979
      JD1979 26 January 2018 13: 23 New
      +2
      Then it’s better to do binary or HMW.
      1. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 27 January 2018 23: 01 New
        0
        The eighth decade has passed since the time when we began to deal with liquid propellants. Yes, and not with us, either. And it’s not a fact that the deadline for the introduction of LMW is at least half passed.
    2. Aqr009
      Aqr009 26 January 2018 21: 39 New
      +5
      It’s easier for the West, they have plenty of cotton, and after the collapse of the USSR, all the cotton left in Russia. Now they are mastering the production of gunpowder from flax and hemp. sad
      1. Tamagon
        Tamagon 27 January 2018 16: 11 New
        +1
        Why is it sad? If the transition of the production of gunpowder from cotton to flax occurs, then the recovery of flax growing and hemp breeding will accordingly lead to it. And this means more natural fabrics will be more for light industry. And this is good !!! And it came to pass that we were already importing jute from Vietnam. So the trend is positive !!! hi
      2. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 27 January 2018 23: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Aqr009

        4
        Aqr009 Yesterday, 21:39 PM ↑
        It’s easier for the West, they have plenty of cotton, and after the collapse of the USSR, all the cotton left in Russia. Now they are mastering the production of gunpowder from flax and hemp.

        We had high-energy gunpowders and in Soviet times there weren’t.
  3. tchoni
    tchoni 26 January 2018 13: 16 New
    0
    The Russian T-14 tank will be equipped with the most powerful serially manufactured tank gun of high ballistics 2А82-1М in the world.
    Maybe a powerful, but certainly the rarest tank gun in the world. Collection sample. ))) Neither GIVE GOD from such a shoot. - shot as an economic crime in China. hi
  4. Firework
    Firework 26 January 2018 13: 23 New
    +1
    high-quality model, it seemed that this gun
  5. mlad
    mlad 26 January 2018 13: 23 New
    0
    Quote: NEXUS
    Gunpowder would be new to us and no worse than Western ones ... then the effectiveness of our weapons would increase substantially.

    Yes, there are new ones like gunpowder, but they are dangerous at deep subzero temperatures and it is not known how foreign ones will behave at such a temperature, so in Africa only.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 10 June 2018 22: 08 New
      0
      Quote: mlad
      .... Yes, like gunpowder there are new ones, but they are dangerous at deep subzero temperatures

      In domestic TK for gunpowder it is prescribed that gunpowder should retain its properties at a temperature of -50 degrees. For foreign gunpowders, this bar is much lower. It seems to be -30, but I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this figure.
  6. shura7782
    shura7782 26 January 2018 13: 26 New
    +5
    So far, all the news is in excellent shape. good good good
    Waiting for impressions from the troops. For me, the assessment of the tankers is the most important.
  7. SuperMeehan
    SuperMeehan 26 January 2018 13: 29 New
    +3
    Quote: NEXUS
    Gunpowder would be new to us and no worse than Western ones ... then the effectiveness of our weapons would increase substantially.
    - we have been developed in the USSR, but the Americans stole secrets during Yeltsin.
  8. ZVO
    ZVO 26 January 2018 13: 30 New
    +4
    Well how can it be serial tank gun if not a single serial no tank?

    MOSCOW, January 24. / TASS /. Serial production of the latest T-14 Armata tanks will begin in 2020, several hundred vehicles will be manufactured. This was reported to TASS by a source in the Russian military-industrial complex.
    "In accordance with the state armament program for 2018-2027, mass serial production of tanks on the Armata platform should begin in 2020."

    More on TASS:
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4897496

    A system component can be serial if it is used in several systems ...
    But since the 2A82-1M gun is a component of only one T-14 system, which will only begin to go into production in 20, it cannot be a serial one. Nowadays..

    As usual, one ranting and racing ahead of the engine ..
    1. mlad
      mlad 26 January 2018 13: 45 New
      +4
      Well, if the equipment and the assembly line is ready for mass, not unit production. it can be called serial
    2. adma
      adma 26 January 2018 13: 49 New
      +2
      The same 2A82, only without an ejector.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Lock36
      Lock36 26 January 2018 14: 07 New
      +4
      Quote: ZVO
      Well, how can there be a serial tank gun if there is not a single serial tank?

      And what is the connection in general? Do you understand the definition of "serial product"?
  9. Achtaba1970
    Achtaba1970 26 January 2018 14: 13 New
    +2
    They may have been released a little, but the article says:
    "As expected, 2A82-1M will eventually be installed on modernized domestic combat vehicles."
    So the series has probably already begun.
    1. Genry
      Genry 29 January 2018 12: 23 New
      0
      Quote: Achtuba1970
      Maybe there are few of them released, but the article says: ...

      Do not believe everything that is written on the fence.
      The 2A82-1M gun without an ejector and therefore must be installed in uninhabited combat modules.
  10. shurik
    shurik 26 January 2018 15: 40 New
    0
    And whose pip is cooler? laughing
  11. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 26 January 2018 16: 29 New
    0
    After the T-14 goes into series and the tests at the ranges will be excellent .... I think it’s right if they replace tank guns with other tanks, most likely with the T-90M.
  12. Dzungar
    Dzungar 26 January 2018 17: 41 New
    0
    There is no ejector .... This was noted as soon as everyone saw the T-14. But what about the gas contamination of BO ...? It turns out to be some innovative solutions ....
    1. The comment was deleted.
  13. Andrea1278
    Andrea1278 26 January 2018 20: 39 New
    +2
    It’s sad to see the new generation’s thermal insulating casing on the new gun ... This seriously affects the accuracy of shooting, why in the West the casing is completely different. But most of all, accuracy of production is influenced by the tolerances of barrel pipe production. In our factories, the caliber of the new gun can hang in the range 123,5 - 126,5 mm. This is considered normal trunks ... In the West, the tolerance is not more than 0.4 mm ... That's where you need to work.
    1. Alf
      Alf 26 January 2018 21: 28 New
      +9
      Quote: Andrea1278
      In our factories, the caliber of the new gun can hang in the range 123,5 - 126,5 mm.

      Where did such tales come from?
      With such tolerances, the projectile will stop in the barrel.
      Once again I ask, what kind of source of information? Give me a link.
    2. Genry
      Genry 29 January 2018 12: 26 New
      0
      Quote: Andrea1278
      In our factories, the caliber of the new gun can hang in the range 123,5 - 126,5 mm.

      Do you know what a millimeter is? Have you already finished school?
  14. Vdi73
    Vdi73 26 January 2018 22: 50 New
    +1
    Indians need to transfer technology. Recently, we have been merging them all, if I'm not mistaken, it will not be surprising that the USA will receive them. They already agree to buy S-400, but with the right to manufacture at home and on a cheap basis. Let them buy from the states of Patriot by the cheap together with the technology ... I understand the defense industry, money and the market are needed, but not by squandering the technology. Maybe they also want the S-500?
    1. Redfox3k
      Redfox3k 26 January 2018 23: 53 New
      0
      If they sell, then yesterday. We have to watch tomorrow for something.
    2. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 28 January 2018 23: 47 New
      0
      1) they haven’t sold anything critical to the Indians yet, everything that is produced is either a license or jointly developed, and they did not learn how to make tank barrels
  15. Per se.
    Per se. 27 January 2018 22: 05 New
    0
    Grigory_45 Comment above. Dixi.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 27 January 2018 23: 04 New
      +2
      perhaps a further dispute simply does not make sense. He threatens to go to academic. We can speculate whether or not a 30-mm cannon is needed, and also agree that the 152-mm ATGM has much more power than the 120-mm cannon, and they can actually destroy enemy tanks at a distance of 4-5 km.
      As for the comparison of both tanks, I do not see the advantages of the “195” over the “Armata” with a 152 mm gun. As well as special disadvantages. Cars are almost equivalent, if, of course, judged by the information that is available. But I am frankly confused by the date of the beginning of work on "195" - 1988 (if I’m not mistaken?) Really for such a long time did not revise ... if not the principles and ideology, then the technical construction of some systems? First of all, this is the construction of a "digital board". That, in fact, is why I don’t understand you very much why you are so zealously caring for “Object 195”
  16. Grigory_45
    Grigory_45 27 January 2018 22: 48 New
    +3
    Per se.,

    Quote: Per se.
    Object 195 surpasses the T-14 in that it had a 152 mm gun and a 30 mm automatic

    Armata also has the ability to install 152-mm guns. In this regard, tanks are equivalent. Is there any way to put a 6-inch right here and right now? Of course, this will pull:
    1) decrease in BC
    2) decrease in rate of fire


    Quote: Per se.
    it was better protected (weight 55 tons, with lightweight armor titanium and composites)

    I am not a developer of either Almaty, nor even the 195th, because I can’t judge passive armored protection. Are there any real materials for protecting tanks in the public domain? By the resistance of armor, the characteristics of DZ? ..
    As for the active defense complexes, I would give preference to “Armata” (although it was far from perfect). As for the means of camouflage and situational awareness of the crew (the survival of the tank and crew depends on this, too).

    Quote: Per se.
    About the "Terminator" and "Coalition", it is quite possible to produce them on the T-90 chassis, it will be much more reasonable.

    I fully agree for the “Coalition”, and the “Terminator”, given the presence of the T-15 infantry fighting vehicle, becomes simply unnecessary - all of its functions (and at a higher level) can be performed by a heavy BMP. The armament complex is the same, armor protection and equipment are better, plus you can take a group of foot soldiers, which in a battle in the city will be a significant factor.

    Quote: Per se.
    could start mass production already in 2010-2011

    They don’t cry for lost hair, right? Could, or could not - now it does not matter.
    1. Genry
      Genry 29 January 2018 12: 47 New
      0
      Quote: Gregory_45
      Quote: Per se.
      About the "Terminator" and "Coalition", it is quite possible to produce them on the T-90 chassis, it will be much more reasonable.

      For the "Coalition" I agree completely,

      For the Coalition, with its long trunk and high center of gravity, just the Almaty chassis (longer and wider than the T-90) will be much more convenient for driving over bumps (less buildup and the likelihood of sticking the trunk).
      Quote: Gregory_45
      and the "Terminator", given the presence of the T-15 BMP, becomes simply unnecessary - all of its functions (and at a higher level) can be performed by a heavy BMP.

      For the Terminator, you need the most protected chassis, since it goes with the very first striking means of attack, with a huge expenditure of ammunition (the internal volume will be occupied) and fire will be more concentrated on it.
      Armament BMP can not be compared with him. It must be very mobile, so basically it can not be heavily loaded with weapons. And weapons can only be located above the armor, in a module with limited ammunition.
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 29 January 2018 13: 39 New
        +1
        Quote: Genry
        chassis of Almaty (longer and wider in comparison with T-90

        Armata is not wider than the T-90. The width of combat vehicles is regulated by the requirements of their transportation by rail. In fact, the “Coalition” is the same “Msta”, only slightly doped and automated. The T-72/90 chassis does an excellent job of carrying such a howitzer. You can, of course, adapt the chassis of “Almaty”, but of special meaning (which would give quality superiority) I do not see.

        Quote: Genry
        Armament BMP can not be compared with him

        Compare the "Terminator" and the BMP T-15. What is the difference? Only one "extra" 30-mm barrel, which does not weather. Everything else is the same. Plus enhanced protection and newer electronics.
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 29 January 2018 13: 47 New
        +1
        Quote: Genry
        less buildup and probability of sticking the trunk

        Well, what kind of lunar landscape do you need to ride, so that the trunk of the "Coalition" or "Msta" scoops to draw, and even fixed in a marching way?
  17. Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 28 January 2018 23: 45 New
    0
    The most important moment is different .. will they put a new 2a82-1m on the t-90 after modernization on the topic Breakthrough-3.. If they are put together with new shells, then the army will get almost five hundred tanks capable of making beautiful holes in 3-4 years enemy tanks.
    1. Genry
      Genry 29 January 2018 12: 53 New
      0
      Quote: Boris Chernikov
      will they put a new 2a82-1m on the t-90 after modernization on the topic of Breakthrough-3

      How do you imagine the work of a gun without an ejector in a habitable volume? What will happen to the crew?
      If you make the T-90 robotic, then you can.
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 29 January 2018 13: 29 New
        +1
        Quote: Genry
        How do you imagine the work of a gun without an ejector in a habitable volume?

        is blowing with an ejector the only possible way? There is no ejector on the Leclerc; on the AMX-13 and AMX-30, too. Do not like the French ejector. It is also absent on low ballistic guns (it works sensibly at low pressure of powder gases).
        A gun without an ejector can be placed on inhabited BOs. By providing forced blowdown of the barrel with compressed air (as an option)
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 29 January 2018 13: 32 New
        +1
        Quote: Genry
        What will happen to the crew?

        and with an ejector sometimes after several shots of snot to the knee. In addition, in any case, it is necessary to purge, even if there is no crew - powder gases are not good for electronics, optics, or other mechanisms.
      3. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 29 January 2018 23: 43 New
        0
        Well, it’s said that new technologies were used, and no one forbids developing a version with a purge or an ejector
  18. Per se.
    Per se. 29 January 2018 19: 25 New
    0
    Grigory_45,
    I didn’t want to discuss with you further, but your enthusiasm is captivating ... Let's finish it, if you are interested in this topic, which is still very secret, take an interest and think. Here is some information for these thoughts.
    A special role in the creation of the tank of the future was played by the Chairman of the Central Council of ROSTO (DOSAAF), Colonel-General Sergei Mayev. From 1996 to 2003 for the year, he served as Chief of the Main Automobile and Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and led the development of the T-95 tank (OCR "Perfection-88"). Vyacheslav Prunov, the editor-in-chief of Rosinformbyuro, managed to talk with the patriarch of the Russian tank construction industry (interview of 2013 of the year).
    Sergey Maev: “Armat” will need to pull up to the level of T-95
    - It was planned, in 2005, to finish state tests and to launch it (tank T-95) in a series. In the first year they had to make 100 machines, then 300 machines. This is ahead of the development of the world tank building years on 15. Two years ago, at an exhibition in Paris, I saw the layout of the Leopard, in which German designers tried to somehow replicate the T-95 to accommodate the crew, ammunition and the gun and the elements of technical vision. But it was just a layout.
    - And we already had a new generation car in the metal.
    - And we have two samples of T-95 already departed 15 thousand. Km. And the gun has already made 287 shots. The tank was ready. It was necessary to create a third option, conduct a full-scale revision, based on the first and second samples, and on the third option, conduct state tests, make some changes and launch the series. And we would have the best tank in the world.
    - But what happened? Why abandoned the finished T-95 and opened a new work on "Armata"?
    - What happened is difficult to explain. I was at one of the meetings of the military-industrial commission, when the customers spoke, and Nikolay Yershov was the head of the Main Automobile and Armored Directorate, I told them that in order to finish this car, one more tank had to be made, to spend about 500 mln. rubles,
    - Well, this is not fantastic money.
    - Yes, they remained, the money. The creation of T-95 was not allocated a lot, total 2.2 billion rubles. And when I left, we had 700 million left. 400 million to make a third car and 300- for state tests.
    But, I was objected that the machine is structurally too complicated and it will not be mastered and will be very expensive. And I said: “Yes, it is expensive and complicated, but now you will not spend 700 millions of rubles, but much more, simplify the specifications and make the car. Which class will be lower. " So I said: "You will do ... ka (Ubudka)."
    - So, creating “Armata”, did the designers take a step back?
    - Creating T-95, we went to a new class of car. Unfortunately, it is lost. The paradox is that “Armata” will need to be dragged by characteristics to the level of “Improvement-88”. But the enemy is not in place.
    - Do you think “Armat” will be worse than T-95?
    - Well, of course, it will be worse than "Improvement-88". I think so. But the new just does not come. It was necessary to squeeze all the will into a fist and bring the T-95 to mind. In the 2005 year, we could actually begin to release a new tank. It is now -2013 year. Eight years have passed!
    “And yet, why didn't the T-95 be adopted?” Why put an end to the already finished best tank in the world? Why undertook a new, dubious development work? Could it be money? After all, KB lives by development?
    - Forgive me, Lord! It seems to me that there are only personal motives. I wanted Ershov to become an outstanding tanker. I warned him: "You will be kicked out in a year!" And so it happened.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 29 January 2018 20: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: Per se.
      I didn’t want to discuss further with you, but your enthusiasm bribes ... Let's finish now

      So we actually completed. As part of this discussion. I just made a clarification that the 195th GI did not pass. Did not have time.
      However, I’m sure we will return to the topic. I myself have information for reflection, but - somehow later. Otherwise, this song threatens to become eternal.
      And a lot of things were kept secret in 195 because so many developments on it directly went to “Armata”. So if you care about money - they are not lost. By the way, by the way, my grandmother also said in two. Neither 2005, nor even 2010, we were even talking about the deployment of production. Dates are shifted, and as a rule - only to the right. When he left the walls of his native design bureau two years ago, he sincerely believed that the Kurgan would be on the conveyor in a year or two. Where there ..
  19. Per se.
    Per se. 30 January 2018 05: 46 New
    0
    Boris Chernikov,
    Comment above.
  20. Cyril Troekurych
    Cyril Troekurych 3 February 2018 05: 20 New
    0
    I demand a new car to use in biathlon
    otherwise we see some ponty clumsy on paper outlined