British infantry anti-tank weapons (part of 2)

33

In the post-war period, the British infantry's anti-tank weapons were subjected to a total revision. Without any regret, hand-held anti-tank grenades, bottle-throwers and stock mortars were written off and disposed of. After de-arming the PIAT anti-tank grenade launcher PIAT, its place in the British army was taken by the American 50-mm M88,9 Super Bazooka grenade launcher, which received the UK designation M20 Mk II 20 inch rocket launcher. The British received the first Super Bazook designs in the 3.5 year, and the licensed production of a grenade launcher began with the 1950 year.

British infantry anti-tank weapons (part of 2)

British marines with M20 Mk II grenade launcher


The British version of the M20 Mk II as a whole corresponded to the American 88,9-mm grenade launcher M20B1 and had the same characteristics. His service in the British armed forces continued until the end of the 60's. After decommissioning, the British Bazuki was sold to countries that were mostly former British colonies. According to user feedback, compared to the American prototype, these were more solidly made and reliable products.



Since the "Super Bazooka" was too heavy and cumbersome weapons, for use in the “squad-platoon” link, the British in 1952 adopted the HEAT-RFL-75N ENERGA rifle grenade, which began production in Belgium in the 1950 year.


Training rifle grenade HEAT-RFL-75N ENERGA


In the British army, ENERGA received the designation No.94. The grenade was shot with the muzzle 22-mm nozzle Mark 5 idle chuck. A garnet of 395-mm caliber weighed 645 g and contained 180 g of Composition B explosive (a mixture of hexogen and TNT).


Shooter armed with a Lee-Enfield No.4 rifle with No.94 anti-tank grenade on a muzzle

Originally, X-NUMX-mm Lee-Enfield No.7,7 rifles were used for shooting, and with 4, self-loading rifles L1955A1. With each grenade delivered to the troops, a blank cartridge and a folding plastic frame sight, designed for a range from 1 to 25 m, went in a special case. During transportation, the sensitive piezoelectric fuse was covered with a removable plastic cap.


Shooter armed with a L1A1 rifle with No.94 anti-tank grenade on the muzzle

According to the instructions for use, the No.94 rifle grenade could normally penetrate 200 mm homogeneous armor. But as the fighting in Korea showed, the acronym's striking effect was small. Not even the newest Soviet averages Tanks In some cases, the T-34-85 did not lose their combat effectiveness when cumulative grenades hit, and it was difficult to calculate that No.94 would be an effective means against the T-54 or IS-3. For greater effect, a rifle grenade launched along a hinged trajectory was supposed to hit the tank from above, breaking through the relatively thin upper armor. However, the probability of hitting a moving armored vehicle with a mounted shot was low. However, No.94 grenades were available in units of the British Rhine Army until the early 70s. According to the state, in each rifle platoon there was a shooter armed with a rifle with a 22-mm muzzle adapter for firing anti-tank rifle grenades. Cases with three grenades were carried on a belt in special pouches.

At the start of the 70, the No.94 grenade in the Rhineland army was replaced with a disposable 66-LAW grenade launcher, which received the British designation L72A1 LAW1. The data that the British used them against enemy armored vehicles could not be found. But it is authentically known that the royal marines fired from 66-mm grenade launchers to suppress the firing points of the Argentines on the Falklands.

In the British Army, the 88,9-mm M20 Mk II was replaced by the Swedish 84-mm rocket launcher Carl Gustaf M2. The British military began to use this weapon from the end of the 60-x under the designation 84 mm L14A1 MAW. Compared with the "Super Bazooka" rifled "Carl Gustav" was a more accurate and reliable weapon, and also had the best armor penetration and could fire fragmentation shells.


British soldiers with 84 mm L14A1 MAW grenade launcher


84-mm grenade launchers were actively used for fire support of amphibious assault on the Falkland Islands. 3 April 1982, a successful shot from L14A1, the rocket launcher calculation of the British marines was damaged by the Argentinean corvette “Guerrico”.

However, after the end of the “cold war”, the British command decided to write off most of the existing 84-mm L14A1 grenade launchers and to abandon the purchase of modern modifications. It is noteworthy that the British army began to massively use the "Carl Gustav" earlier than the Americans, and by the time the United States adopted the Carl Gustaf M3, the British had already parted with their 84 mm L14A1 MAW.

In addition to individual anti-tank weapons that could be used by individual infantrymen, in the post-war period in Britain, heavy recoilless guns and guided anti-tank missile systems were created.

The first British recoilless became a weapon, put into service in 1954, under the name QF 120 mm L1 BAT (English Battalion Anti-Tank - Battalion anti-tank gun). It looked like an ordinary anti-tank gun, had a low silhouette and shield shield. The gun was developed as a low-cost alternative to the 76,2-mm QF 17 pounder, moreover, the rollback was much easier. The 120-mm recoilless gun was created on the basis of the 88-mm 3.45 inch RCL, designed in 1944 year. The 88-mm gun RCL with a rifled barrel had a mass of 34 kg and fired 7,37 kg with shells with an initial velocity of 180 m / s. The effective range for armored vehicles was 300 m, the maximum - 1000 m.

As in many other cases, in the creation of anti-tank ammunition, the British went their own original way. As the only ammunition for 88-mm recoilless, an armor-piercing high-explosive projectile of type HESH (eng. High-explosive squash head) equipped with a powerful plastic explosive was adopted. When hit in the armor of a tank, the weakened head of such a projectile flattens out, the explosive is smeared over the armor and at that moment undermined by a bottom inertial fuse. After an explosion in a tank's armor, stress waves occur, leading to detachment from its inner surface of the fragments flying at an enormous speed, affecting the crew and equipment. The creation of such shells was largely due to the desire to create a single, unified multipurpose ammunition, equally suitable for fighting armored vehicles, destroying field fortifications and destroying enemy personnel. However, as practice has shown, the best results of the use of shells of the HESH type were demonstrated when firing at concrete pillboxes and tanks with homogeneous armor. Due to the fact that the body of the armor-piercing high-explosive projectile has a relatively small thickness, its fragmentation effect is weak.

Due to the protracted process of refining the 88-mm guns, it reached an acceptable operational level already in the post-war period, and due to a decrease in defense expenditures, the military was in no hurry to adopt it. Due to the sharp increase in the protection of promising tanks, it became obvious that the 88-mm armor-piercing high-explosive projectile could not ensure their reliable destruction and the caliber of the gun was increased to 120-mm, and the shot weight was 27,2 kg.


120-mm recoilless gun L1 BAT in the firing position


The 120-mm armor-piercing high-explosive projectile weighing 12,8 kg left the barrel with an initial speed of 465 m / s, which was a fairly high rate for the recoilless gun. The target range of fire was 1000 m, the maximum - 1600 m. According to British data, an armor-piercing high-explosive projectile was effective in armor with a thickness of up to 400 mm. Weapon firing rate - 4 rds / min.

After the release of a certain amount of 120-mm recoilless guns, the British Army Command demanded a weight reduction. If such shortcomings as a small effective firing range, low accuracy in firing at maneuvering targets, the presence of a danger zone behind the gun due to the outflow of powder gases when firing, could still be tolerated, then the weight of the gun in a combat position more than 1000 kg made it difficult use as an anti-tank battalion link. In this regard, at the end of the 50-x, the upgraded L4 MOBAT cannon was adopted (Mobile Battalion Anti-Tank - Mobile Battalion Anti-Tank Cannon).


Recoilless L4 MOBAT


Due to the dismantling of the armor shield, the mass of the gun was reduced to 740 kg. In addition, the upgraded version was able to fire in the 360 ° sector with vertical guidance angles from -8 to + 17 °. To facilitate the aiming of the gun at the target, a sighting 7,62-mm Bren machine gun was mounted parallel to the barrel, shooting from which was carried out by tracer bullets. If necessary, the machine gun could be removed from the gun and used separately.

It was believed that the calculation of three people can roll a tool for a short distance. A Land Rover army vehicle was used to tow the L4 MOBAT. However, the mobility of 120-mm bezotkatki still did not satisfy the British military, and in 1962, a new version appeared - L6 Wombat (English Weapon Of Magnesium, Battalion, Anti Tank - Anti-tank gun made of magnesium alloys).


Recoilless L6 WOMBAT


Through the use of higher quality steel, it was possible to reduce the thickness of the walls of the rifled barrel. The wheels of a smaller diameter allowed the gun to be squat, but its towing over a considerable distance was no longer provided for, and the new wheelbarrow was to be transported in the back of a truck. But most importantly, widespread use in the construction of magnesium alloys made it possible to reduce the weight by more than two times - to a record 295 kg.


The calculation of the L6 WOMBAT at the firing position


Another feature was the introduction of the 12,7-mm sighting semi-automatic rifle M8S, the ballistic characteristics of which coincided with the flight path of the 120-mm armor-piercing high-explosive projectile. This made it possible to significantly increase the likelihood of hitting a moving tank from the first shot, since the gunner could navigate in range and choose a lead on the trajectory of the tracer bullets. When hit sighting-tracer bullet in the target, it exploded, forming a cloud of white smoke. The M8С sighting semi-automatic rifle for the special 12,7 × 76 cartridge used on the L6 WOMBAT was borrowed from the American 106-mm recoilless gun M40А1, but differed in barrel length.



In the middle of the 60-s, incendiary 120-mm without recoil was introduced with incendiary and lighting projectiles, which was supposed to expand combat capabilities. To repel the attacks of enemy infantry at a distance of 300 m, a shot with ready slaughter elements in the form of arrows was intended. An inert projectile equipped with blue, which could be shot at its own tanks, without the risk of damage, was also used for teaching and training calculations.



Simultaneously with the introduction of the L6 WOMBAT, upgrades subjected some of the existing L4 MOBAT. After that, they received the designation L7 CONBAT (English Converted Battalion Anti-Tank - Converted battalion anti-tank gun). The upgrade consisted in the installation of new sights and the replacement of the Bren machine gun with a semi-automatic 12,7-mm rifle.

However, the new L6 WOMBAT quickly superseded the guns of early modifications. Despite the wide spread of ATGMs, many recoilless guns were in the Rhine Army deployed in the Federal Republic of Germany. The British command believed that in the course of combat operations in the urban area, recoilless may be more useful than ATGM. But by the second half of the 70-s against the background of the rapid re-equipment of the Soviet armored divisions deployed in the western direction, it became obvious that 120-mm armor-piercing high-explosive shells would be ineffective against new-generation tanks with multi-layer armor. However, the immediate removal of 120-mm recoilless guns from the weapons of the British army did not happen. They were still able to destroy light armored vehicles, destroy fortifications, and provide fire support. L6 WOMBAT remained in service with paratroopers and marines until the end of the 80s. To increase mobility, 120-mm recoilless guns were often placed on off-road vehicles.

In terms of mass, size, range and accuracy of firing, the British L6 WOMBAT are the most advanced in their class and represent the evolutionary peak of the development of recoilless guns. After decommissioning in the UK, a significant portion of the 120-mm non-recoil was exported. Foreign users in the countries of the "third world" appreciated them for their unpretentious and rather strong projectile. In local wars, recoilless British-made armored vehicles were rarely used. Usually they fired on enemy positions, provided fire support to their infantry, and destroyed firing points.

The first model of anti-tank weapons adopted by the British Army was the Malkara ATGM (Sheet - in the language of the Australian Aborigines), created in Australia in 1953 year. Now it may seem strange, but in the 50-60-ies, Australian engineers were actively developing various types of missiles, and there was a missile testing ground in the Australian desert.


ATGM Malkara on the launcher


In the Malkara ATGM system, technical solutions typical of the first generation complexes were implemented. The ATGM was controlled by the manual guidance operator with a joystick, the visual tracking of the rocket flying at a speed of 145 m / s was carried out via two tracers installed at the wingtips, and the transmission of guidance commands via a wired line. The first version had the launch range of all 1800 m, but later this figure was brought to 4000 m.

The first British-Australian controlled anti-tank complex was very cumbersome and heavy. Since the customer originally planned to use the anti-tank guided missile systems not only against armored vehicles, but also to destroy enemy fortifications and use in coastal defense systems, an unprecedentedly large caliber - 203 mm was used for the Australian missile, and an HESH-type armor-piercing warhead weighing 26 kg was equipped with plastic explosives .


ATGM Malkara launchers in firing position


According to British ATGM data, the Malkara could hit an armored vehicle covered with 650 mm with homogeneous armor, which in 50's was more than enough to destroy any serial tank. However, the mass and dimensions of the rocket turned out to be very significant: the weight of the 93,5 kg with the length of 1,9 m and the wingspan of 800 mm. With such weight and size data, the complex was not transported, and all its elements could be delivered to the launch position only on vehicles. After the release of a small number of anti-tank systems with launchers installed on the ground, developed a self-propelled version on the chassis of an armored car Hornet FV1620.


Tank destroyer Hornet FV1620


On the armored car mounted launcher on two missiles, two more ATGM included in ammunition carried with him. The British army refused ground-based launchers at the end of the 50s, but the Malkara anti-tank guns were in service until the middle of the 70s, although this complex was never popular due to the constant rocketing of operators.

In 1956, Vickers-Armstrong began developing a lightweight anti-tank missile system that could be used in a portable version. In addition to reducing the weight and size of the military wanted to get easy to use weapons that do not impose high demands on the skills of the operator guidance. The first version of ATGM Vigilant (translated from English - Alert) with ATGM Type 891 was adopted in 1959 year. As with most anti-tank complexes of the time, the Vigilant used the transmission of guidance commands via wire. The calculation of three people carried six missiles and a battery, as well as a simple and easy to use control panel, made in the form of a rifle butt with a monocular optical sight and joystick control under the thumb. The length of the cable connecting the control panel with launchers was enough to remove the launch position from the operator on the 63 m.


ATGM Vigilant control panel


Thanks to an improved control system, the presence of a gyroscope and an autopilot, the Type 891 missile was much smoother and more predictable than on the Malkara ATGM. The probability of hitting was also higher. At the test site, an experienced operator at a distance of up to 1400 m hit on average 8 targets from 10. The 14 kg rocket had a length of 0,95 m and a wingspan of 270 mm. Average flight speed was 155 m / s. Information on armor penetration and the type of warhead used in the first modification of the ATGM are quite contradictory. A number of sources indicate that the Type 891 rocket used 6 kg armor-piercing high-explosive warhead type HESH.


ATGM Type 891 on the launcher


In 1962, an improved version of the Vigilant ATGM was launched.
with Type 897 rocket. Through the use of a shaped charge and a special rod with a piezoelectric fuse, it was possible to increase the penetration rate. A cumulative warhead weighing 5,4 kg normal punched 500 mm in homogeneous armor, which for a start 60-s was very good. The length of the Type 897 rocket increased to 1070 mm, and the launch range was in the range of 200-1350 m.


ATGM Type 897 in the transport and launch container


Based on the technical solutions implemented for the launch of the French SS.10 and ENTAC anti-tank guided missile systems, Vickers-Armstrongs engineers also used disposable tin launchers. Before launching the rocket, the front cover was removed, and the rectangular container was oriented toward the target and connected to the control panel with an electric cable. Thus, it was possible not only to reduce the time of equipping the firing position, but also to increase the convenience of transporting missiles and provide them with additional protection from mechanical influences.



Despite the modest launch range, the Vigilant ATGM liked combat crews and was quite a formidable weapon for its time. British sources claim that a number of anti-tank complexes were purchased by the United States Marine Corps, and by the end of the VNGilX 60's were purchased by nine more states.

Almost simultaneously with the ATGM Vigilant, Pye Ltd, a company specializing in the production of electronics and electrical engineering, which had not had experience in aircraft and rocket production before, was developing a more long-range guided anti-tank weapon system. The ATGM, known as Python, used a very original rocket with a jet-nozzle control system and a stabilization method of rotation. To reduce the guidance error, a special signal stabilization device was developed, which compensated for the operator’s excessively sharp efforts on the joystick's manipulator and transformed them into smoother signals to the rocket steering gear. This, among other things, allowed minimizing the effects of vibration and other factors that adversely affect the accuracy of the guidance.


Python ATGMs at firing position


The control unit, completely made on a semiconductor element base, was mounted on a tripod and weighed 49 kg with a battery. To observe the target, prismatic binoculars with variable multiplicity were used, which could be used separately from the command block as a surveillance device.


ATGM Python


In the design of Python ATGM, light alloys and plastics were widely used. The steering surfaces of the rocket did not have, the plumage was intended purely to stabilize and impart stability to the rocket in flight. The change in direction of flight was carried out with the help of the control system of the charge. The transfer of commands took place over the wire. To facilitate the rocket tracking process, two tracer units were installed on the wings. An ATGM weighing 36,3 kg carried a powerful 13,6 kg warhead. The length of the rocket was 1524 mm, wingspan - 610 mm. The range and speed of flight were not disclosed, but according to expert estimates the rocket could hit a target at a distance of up to 4000 m.

The Python ATCM looked very promising, but its refinement dragged on. In the end, the British military preferred, if not so long-range and sophisticated, but relatively simple Vigilant. One of the reasons for the failure of the very advanced Python was the critically high coefficient of novelty of the technical solutions used. After the British Defense Ministry officially announced it was abandoning purchases of Python ATGMs, it was offered to foreign buyers during the 20-th exhibition in Farnborough in September 1959. But there were no customers able to finance the launch of a new ATGM system in mass production, and all work on this complex was curtailed in 1962.

Simultaneously with the completion of work on the Python ATGM system, the Minister of Defense of the United Kingdom, Peter Thornycroft, announced the beginning of the development of a long-range anti-tank complex by the standards of the time, which later received the designation Swingfire (Wandering Fire). This name was given to the complex for the ability of the rocket to change the direction of flight at an angle to 90 °.

The new anti-tank complex was not created from scratch, while its development, Fairey Engineering Ltd used the groundwork for Orange William, an experienced anti-tank missile system. Test launches of missiles began in the 1963 year, and in 1966 the serial assembly of a batch intended for military trials. However, until 1969, the project was threatened with closure, due to intrigues in the military. The project was attacked by critics due to excessive cost and schedule delays.

The Swingfire ATGM initially had a control system of the same type as other first-generation British anti-tank complexes. Commands on the rocket were transmitted over a wired communication line, and targeting occurred manually with the help of a joystick. In the middle of the 70-x for the new ATGM created a semi-automatic guidance system, which immediately brought it to the second generation and allowed to fully reveal the existing potential. The complex with a semi-automatic guidance system is known as Swingfire SWIG (Eng. Swingfire With Improved Guidance - Stray Fire with Improved Orientation).


ATGM Swingfire


The Swingfire ATGM is launched from an airtight transport and launch container. The missile with a launch weight of 27 kg has a length of 1070 m and carries a 7 kg warhead with declared armor penetration to 550 mm. Flight speed - 185 m / s. The launch range is from 150 to 4000. The spring-loaded stabilizers that unfold after the launch are immobile, the rocket heading is adjusted by changing the angle of inclination of the nozzle, which ensures excellent maneuverability.

In the early 80s, an improved version of the Swingfire Mk.2 with electronic equipment on a new element base (less mass), with a reinforced warhead and a simplified launcher began to enter service with the British army. According to advertising data, the upgraded missile is capable of penetrating 800 mm homogeneous armor. A combined thermal imaging and optical sight from Barr & Stroud, operating in the wavelength range of 8-14 microns, was introduced into the ATGM for action in day and night conditions.



Due to the large mass, most of the Swingfire complexes were installed on various armored chassis or jeeps. However, there are purely infantry variants. The British Army operated a Golfswing towed launcher that weighed 61 kg. Also known modification Bisving, suitable for carrying the calculation. When placed in a combat position, the control panel can be moved to 100 m from the launcher. Battle calculation portable installation 2-3 man.

From 1966 to 1993, the UK produced more than 46 thousand Swingfire anti-tank missiles in the UK. Despite the fact that the British ATGM was worth about 30% more expensive than the US BGM-71 TOW, it enjoyed some success in the external arms market. Swingfire licensed production was established in Egypt, the complex was also officially exported to 10 states. In the UK itself, all modifications to Swingfire are officially completed in 2005. After long disputes, the British military leadership decided to replace the outdated anti-tank complex with the American FGM-148 Javelin, the production license of which was transferred to British Aerospace Dynamics Limited. Although the Swingfire anti-tank complex was criticized for its high cost over the entire life cycle, it turned out that its price is about 5 times lower than that of Javelin.

Speaking about the controlled anti-tank complexes used by the British army, one can not but mention the MILAN anti-tank missile systems (French. Missile d´infanterie léger antichar - Light Infantry Anti-tank Complex). Production of the complex, developed by the Franco-German consortium Euromissile, began in 1972 year. Due to the relatively high combat and service performance, MILAN became widespread and was adopted in more than 40 countries, including in the UK. It was a fairly compact second-generation ATGM with a typical semi-automatic point-of-sight guidance system with transmission of commands from a launcher to a missile via a wireline. The guidance equipment of the complex is combined with a telescopic sight, and the night-sight MIRA is used for firing at night. The range of use of ATGN MILAN - from 75 m to 2000 m.


MILAN ATGM


Unlike the anti-tank weapons systems adopted earlier in the UK, MILAN was developed from the very beginning with a semi-automatic guidance system. After detecting the target and launching the rocket, the operator is only required to keep the target on the line of sight, and the pointing device receives infrared radiation from the tracer, which is located at the rear of the ATGM and determines the angular mismatch between the line of sight and the direction to the rocket tracer. The hardware unit receives information about the position of the rocket relative to the line of sight, which is issued by the pointing device. The position of the gas-jet steering wheel is determined by the gyro rocket. Based on this information, the hardware unit generates commands that control the operation of controls, and the rocket remains on the line of sight.


ATGM MILAN


According to the data published by the manufacturer, the first version of the 6,73 kg missile and 918 mm length was equipped with the 3 kg cumulative warhead with armor penetration to 400 mm. The maximum speed of the rocket is 200 m / s. Rate of fire - up to 4 rds / min. The mass of the transport and launch container with an ATGM ready for use is about 9 kg. Weight launcher with tripod - 16,5 kg. The weight of the control unit with an optical sight - 4,2 kg.

In the further improvement of the ATGM went on the way to increase the armor penetration and launch range. In the MILAN 2 version produced from the 1984 of the year, the ATGM caliber was increased from 103 to 115-mm, which made it possible to bring the thickness of the pierced armor to 800 mm. In the MILAN ER with the caliber of the 125-mm rocket, the launch range was increased to 3000 m, and the declared armor penetration was up to 1000 mm after overcoming the dynamic protection.


British Marine with ATGM MILAN


In the British armed forces, MILAN at the beginning of the 80-s finally superseded the first-generation anti-tank complexes of the Vigilant and was used in parallel with the heavier and long-range Swingfire. The relatively small mass and dimensions of the MILAN anti-tank missile system made it possible to make it an anti-tank infantry weapon of the company level, suitable for equipping units operating in isolation from the main forces.

MILAN ATGM has a very rich history combat use and successfully used in many local armed conflicts. As for the British armed forces, for the first time in battle, the British used this complex in the Falklands to destroy the Argentinean fortifications. In the course of the anti-Iraq campaign in 1991, with the launches of the MILAN ATGM system, the British destroyed up to 15 units of Iraqi armored vehicles. Currently in the British army ATGM MILAN completely replaced FGM-148 Javelin, operating in the "shot and forget."

To be continued ...


Based on:
https://hatchfive.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/energa-anti-tank-rifle-grenade/
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Malkara+(missile)
http://www.forces80.com/infweap.htmhttp://www.milweb.net/webvert/74184
https://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/recoil-less-guns.35307/
http://weaponsystems.net/weaponsystem/BB05+-+BAT.html
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/australia/malkara.htm
https://www.paradata.org.uk/article/vickers-vigilant-anti-tank-missile
http://careersdocbox.com/US_Military/66155587-Pean-missile-suc-strange-new-weapons-cess-story.html
http://www.dogswar.ru/artilleriia/raketnoe-oryjie/4087-protivotankovyi-rake.html
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1960/1960%20-%200815.html
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/swingfire.htm
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/swingfire.htm
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/milan.htm
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    17 June 2018 05: 01
    With such anti-tank weapons the British infantry will not envy ...
    1. +9
      17 June 2018 06: 45
      Quote: Vard
      With such anti-tank weapons the British infantry will not envy ...

      I do not have envy for the infantry, especially when she is one on one forced to fight with tanks. But if you started talking about this, tell me which of the samples described here, perhaps except for the Malkara ATGM, frankly does not correspond to its purpose?
      1. +6
        17 June 2018 07: 18
        Quote: Bongo
        But since you started talking about this, tell me which of the samples described here, perhaps besides the Malkara anti-tank systems, frankly does not correspond to its purpose?

        Yes, to the best of its abilities, it corresponds to everything ... but only in moderation.
        I’m interested in something else. I recall that our designer Grokhovsky was blamed for the fact that he used a rifled, loaded barrel to design and create his own recoilless rods, which greatly slowed down their development in the USSR, it seems the British, like the Swedes, had a different opinion.
        1. +7
          17 June 2018 07: 34
          Quote: svp67
          Yes, to the best of its abilities, it corresponds to everything ... but only in moderation.

          That's it! Yes But for its time, these were quite effective samples. Many of them are still exploited in the third world countries. The 120-mm recoilless L6 WOMBAT had no analogues at all in terms of the ratio of weight, caliber and projectile power.
          Quote: svp67
          I remember that our designer Grokhovsky was guilty that he used a rifled, loaded barrel when designing and creating his boxless trailers, which he greatly slowed down their development in the USSR, it seems the British, like the Swedes, had a different opinion.

          You probably Kurchevsky probably mean? But this adventurer from artillery, in general, suggested replacing all types of guns with recoilless ones and in the end did not create anything worthwhile.
          In addition, when using a cumulative projectile, it is preferable to shoot them from the "smooth" barrel. If the projectile rotates at high speed, then the centrifugal force “splashes” the cumulative jet, which reduces armor penetration.
          1. +1
            17 June 2018 07: 54
            Quote: Bongo
            In addition, when using a cumulative projectile, it is preferable to shoot them from the "smooth" barrel. If the projectile rotates at high speed, then the centrifugal force “splashes” the cumulative jet, which reduces armor penetration.

            Well, this is not about such a gun. In it, the twist of the rifling can be made more gentle.
            1. +6
              17 June 2018 08: 00
              Quote: svp67
              Well, this is not about such a gun. In it, the twist of the rifling can be made more gentle.

              What's the point?
              The “gyro effect” will not create a slow rotation. And there is no need to compensate for the eccentricity of traction due to the lack of a rocket engine.
              1. +4
                17 June 2018 08: 02
                Quote: Spade
                What's the point?

                hi Ours to you .... slowly "merging"
                But still I would like to understand what the Angles found in such a gun in a rifled barrel?
                1. +5
                  17 June 2018 08: 07
                  Quote: svp67
                  But still I would like to understand what the Angles found in such a gun in a rifled barrel?

                  The Special Way ...
                  That's why the Challenger rifled barrel? Despite the non-compliance with NATO standards, and as a result, possible supply problems.
                  1. 0
                    17 June 2018 09: 32
                    Quote: Spade
                    That's why the Challenger rifled barrel?

                    For accuracy. And of course, "tradition, sir." They used cartridges for a very long time ...
      2. 0
        17 June 2018 08: 16
        "gun weight in a combat position of more than 1000 kg" Poor British infantrymen ...
        1. +1
          17 June 2018 09: 33
          Quote: Vard
          Poor British foot soldiers ...

          You wanted to say gunners ...
          Quote: Vard
          gun weight in the combat position more than 1000 kg

          Not the biggest value, with such a caliber ...
        2. +1
          17 June 2018 12: 29
          Quote: Vard
          "the weight of the gun in a combat position of more than 1000 kg" Poor British infantry ..

          Quote: svp67
          You wanted to say gunners ...

          Yet the 120-mm bezotkatki in the British army were attached to infantry battalions.
  2. +2
    17 June 2018 07: 29
    Not really a hunt for impudent Saxons to spend money on different ATGMs there, sitting quietly behind the strait? So they would be sitting, not sticking out, they would be whole!
    1. +6
      17 June 2018 07: 56
      Just the same they are spent sickly. Simply, for the most part, you have to buy.
      Starting with the ultra-short range "almostPTRK" NLAV and ending with "Spike-NLOS" for long ranges.

      However, here they are trying to continue their "special path".
      For example, creating SPTRK on the basis of the BMP "Vorior" (in fact, instead of landing in the BMP, they added an additional ATGM ammunition). 81-mm mortar guided anti-tank mines with cumulative warheads, MANPADS, initially sharpened by the command of fire not only on aircraft, but also on light armored vehicles. Yes, and a very original NLAV, although developed by the Scandinavians, but commissioned by the British.

      As a vivid illustration of the "special way" - "Spike-NLOS". The creators of Israel are consistently increasing the mobility of the complex on the battlefield. The British are exactly the opposite. The first purchase is SPTRK based on BTR M113, they were written off according to the resource exhaustion after active use in the BV, the second purchase is a towed installation. Apparently imprisoned by helicopter transfer.
  3. +2
    17 June 2018 08: 00
    I came after a 12-hour night shift, without hind legs, I thought I would immediately lie down and die for 7-8 hours, but no, then I saw an azverin, I read, devil got sick. Thank you for work, I look forward to continuing.
  4. +1
    17 June 2018 09: 14
    By the way, there is a question that I still can’t get an answer to: in my very young years, in a review article "devoted" to ATGMs, I mentioned (most likely, experienced ...) ATGM with an inertial guidance system (reminiscent of modern NLAW or SRAW) ... Development: tentatively 60-70 of the last century ... region (presumably): India (still British dominion in those years!) There was a name for this PT-rocket (now forgotten by me!) ... tth was not. Maybe someone met a similar infa, but more detailed ... although I do not exclude that it was a false infa!
    1. +3
      17 June 2018 10: 21
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      India

      8)))))
      In order for work to be carried out in India, they needed to pre-purchase this technology.

      NLAW is the product of SAAB, i.e. Swedish, however, to participate in the British competition
      SRAW / Predator- "Lockheed Martin" - i.e. American, also to participate in this 2002 competition, but lost.
      Well, the "Autonomy" of the Tula Design Bureau. For some reason, some others cite it as an example of a third-generation ATGM this is not so. In the competition, respectively, did not participate.

      That, in fact, is all. No one else worked on this topic.
      1. +2
        17 June 2018 12: 34
        Quote: Spade
        That, in fact, is all. No one else worked on this topic.


        Yes, I have already suggested that the info I mentioned was probably someone’s fiction or distortion. But for a long time I tried to find confirmation or refutation of such information, but to no avail .... so far the name of the ATGM has not been forgotten! The article mentioned India, as I recall ... But I do not exclude the possibility that some country was developing a complex on the instructions of India. The peculiarity of the “pro-Indian” anti-aircraft missile is an inertial guidance system + high supersonic speed .... In order for such performance characteristics to be, more or less, sufficient efficiency, the missile most likely had a short range. Unlike NLAW / SRAW, the INS rocket did not have a loginometer (nevertheless, the last century!) ... the absence of a loginometer was compensated by high speed. At "Autonomy", by the way, GOS.
        1. +4
          17 June 2018 14: 41
          The Americans dabbled, did not hear about India.
          1. +2
            17 June 2018 17: 34
            Quote: Grille
            The Americans dabbled, did not hear about India.

            This, by the way, may be closer to the topic.
            Are you talking about their hypersonic missiles?
            1. +3
              17 June 2018 20: 08
              Yes. About them are the most Vought KEM, HVM and their offspring with Lockheed.
        2. +2
          17 June 2018 15: 22
          Definitely not India.
          They washed off their own first-generation rocket, which did not go into production, and the next was the third-generation Nag.

          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          "Autonomy", by the way, GOS.

          There is no GOS there. Actually, that's why "Autonomy"
          1. +4
            18 June 2018 05: 55
            Quote: Spade
            "
            There is no GOS there. Actually, that's why "Autonomy"



            In the Tula Instrument Design Bureau in the middle of the 1990-ies a small-sized portable third-generation ATGM "Autonomy" was developed with infrared system homing type IIR (Imagine Infra-Red), a variant with a radar head was also worked out homing
            GSN.sudar !!! ... (infrared ... radar ...)
            1. 0
              18 June 2018 06: 54
              Honestly, I have more faith in the publication with the chief armed officer of the RF Armed Forces at the head of the editorial board, rather than the Karpenko Nevsky Bastion site.
              Which also contradicts itself.
              Firstly, both infrared and radar homing do not combine with the ability to hit the target from above on the span.
              Secondly, in the next paragraph he writes: "The missile control system has an autopilot of angular stabilization with highly efficient gas-jet rudders interacting with a supersonic stream of the accelerating engine"
              Well, the range ... 350 meters, dear ... If we have a third-generation ATGM, it will definitely not be ultra-short range.
              1. +2
                18 June 2018 09: 28
                Yes ... the range is small ... But ... Infrared and radar homing can not be combined with the ability to hit the target from above on the span..... Why is it suddenly and why? request I: There are technical solutions that allow "ento to do"; II: ATGM "Autonomy" has different types of warheads ... and, accordingly, different attack modes: a) an attack from the top; b) an attack "on the forehead."
                1. 0
                  18 June 2018 10: 56
                  Quote: Nikolaevich I
                  Infrared and radar homing can not be combined with the ability to hit the target from above on the span ..... Why is it suddenly and why? I: There are technical solutions that allow "ento to do"

                  There are no such solutions. Since for this it is necessary to fly over the target. And in fact, at the most important, final stage of rocket flight, the target is out of sight of the GOS
                  Therefore, self-homing systems, if they hit the target from above, then only with an “off the hill” attack. It turns out that the target is constantly in sight
                  1. +1
                    18 June 2018 11: 20
                    Quote: Spade
                    There are no such solutions.

                    You're wrong !
                    1. 0
                      18 June 2018 11: 30
                      Theoretically, you can try. Having greatly complicated the design by introducing mechanics, which will allow deploying GOS and dramatically increasing the number of image processing cycles with GOS, since at the final stage of guidance it will not work otherwise.
                      But what's the point if you can get by with the defeat “off the hill” and throw out the altimeter and the magnetic sensor?
                      1. +3
                        18 June 2018 12: 16
                        Quote: Spade
                        you can do with a defeat “from the hill” and at the same time throw altimeter and magnetic sensor?

                        When launching a "javelin", the rocket gains altitude of 160 m and flies for some time at this altitude (one of the modes) .... Tell me: how does the "javelin" determine this height when it ascends and controls this height during flight?
  5. +3
    17 June 2018 17: 15
    Thank you for the review article. I did not even imagine that the British infantry had such a huge nomenclature of AT-weapons. I myself really like the LAW-80. smile
    https://modernweapon.ru/strelkovoe-oruzhie/granat
    omety / 391-law-80-protivotankovyj-granatomet-angli
    ya.html
  6. +2
    18 June 2018 18: 43
    It’s interesting about missile weapons in the “pre-missile” era, thanks. fellow Honestly, I was never interested in this topic, because it is unclear why I generally believed that besides the guns and infantry rifle samples the Britons did not have anything, but it turns out that it was not at all ... recourse
    From SW. hi
    PS
    The Australian "killer of tanks located in the near coastal zone" with its mass-dimensional characteristics and combat load is something with something. belay
    1. +3
      19 June 2018 02: 54
      it’s not clear why he generally believed that the British had nothing but guns and infantry rifle samples,

      They had everything and everything was developed. From nuclear weapons to highly original small arms. Just from a certain moment, individual figures decided that buying imported is cheaper than paying their own ...
      And in the end, literally over a decade, the military-industrial complex of Great Britain ordered a long life. How it ended, just read the history of the Falkland War. And there really was Ad and Isael ...
      The Australian "killer of tanks located in the near coastal zone" with its mass-dimensional characteristics and combat load is something with something.

      Duc wanted something universal and cheaper. So it turned out that for the tank too, but not enough for the ship ...
  7. +1
    21 June 2018 09: 12
    You look at how many things they thought up against our valiant tankers, and this is not counting the L \ 7 tank gun.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"