Subcaliber shells present and future

One of the tasks of the modern main battle tank is the destruction of a similar technique of the enemy, for which he needs a powerful gun and the corresponding armor-piercing shells. In the arsenal of Russian tanks there are several anti-tank ammunition, allowing you to fight with well-protected enemy equipment. In addition, in the near future, new models intended for use with armament of advanced equipment should go into large-scale production.


The highest characteristics of armor penetration are shown by armor-piercing feathered sabot projectiles (BOPS). Such ammunition appeared a few decades ago, and later proved to be a convenient means of destruction of armored vehicles, which has powerful protection of various types. As a result, at present BOPS are the main tool of tanks for fighting with other tanks. The development of this class of shells continues.

Serial "Mango"

According to various sources, several types of BOPS are currently in service with Russian armored units, and the Mango 3BM-42 product is the most popular representative of this class. The development of a new projectile with increased power under the code "Mango" began in the first half of the eighties. Through the use of certain materials, technologies and solutions should increase armor penetration in comparison with existing projectiles. The future projectile 3BM-42 was supposed to be used with the existing tank guns of the 2А46 family.


The main tank T-72B3 carries an improved automatic loader, compatible with projectiles of increased length. Photo by Vitalykuzmin.net


A few years later, the 3BBM-17 shot with BOPS 3BM-42 came into service. It includes so-called. a burning cylinder inside which the master is rigidly fixed with a projectile. Also for the shot is used a separate partially burning sleeve with ignition means. The cavities of the liner and cylinder are filled with tubular powder, which provides acceleration of the projectile.

The creators of the projectile "Mango" coped with the task of improving armor penetration, and they did it in a very interesting way. The projectile has a special design, due to which the growth of the main characteristics is achieved. At the same time, 3BM-42 outwardly differs almost nothing from other products of its class. This BOPS hollow cylindrical body of small diameter, made of steel and equipped with a tail stabilizer. The front end of the body is closed with a ballistic cap and so-called. armor piercing damper. In the cavity of the body, one after the other, there are two tungsten cores held in place by a low-melting metal shirt.

On the projectile is set dumped master device, made of aluminum. It has a conical shape with an expanding front end. The interaction with the bore is provided by several rings on the outer surface of the device. The 3BBM-17 shot, which includes the cylinder, the projectile and the master, has a length of 574 mm with a diameter of 125 mm. The mass of the projectile itself - 4,85 kg.


Shot of 3BBM-17 with 3BM-42 Mango projectile. Photo Fofanov.armor.kiev.ua


Combustion of gunpowder in the sleeve and the cylinder allows you to accelerate the projectile with a master device to a speed of no more than 1700 m / s. After exiting the barrel, the master device is reset. When hit the target, the holding shirt melts, after which the tungsten cores can penetrate the armor. Maximum armor penetration at a distance of 2 km is determined in 500 mm. At an 60 ° meeting angle at the same distance, this characteristic is reduced to 220 mm.

The 3BBM-17 shot with the 3BM-42 projectile was put into service in the 1986 year and significantly affected the combat qualities of all existing main tanks of the Soviet army. This product is still used in tank forces and is almost the basis of their arsenals. Subsequently, the modernization was carried out, which consisted in increasing the length of the hull and cores. As a result, the Mango-M weighs 5 kg and can pierce up to 270 mm of armor at an angle of 60 °.

The long road "Lead"

Shortly after the appearance of BOPS "Mango" in our country began the well-known unpleasant events that hit the mass of spheres, including the development of promising shells for tank guns. Only by the end of the nineties was it possible to get real results in the form of the next projectile with enhanced characteristics. This ammunition was the result of development work with the code "Lead".

Subcaliber shells present and future
Scheme products "Mango". Figure Btvt.narod.ru


Experience has shown that a further increase in the main combat characteristics is associated with an obligatory increase in the length of the projectile. This parameter was brought to the 740 mm, but this fact did not allow the use of the future projectile with the existing tank loading machines. As a result, in the next project of modernization of armored vehicles had to include an update of automation, serving the gun.

In terms of overall appearance, the 3BBM-20 shot with the 3BM-46 “Lead-1” projectile is somewhat similar to the older 3BBM-17 and also consists of a projectile in a burning cylinder and a sleeve with a metal pan. In this case, the design of the projectile itself is very different from the existing one. At this time, it was decided to use a monolithic core of depleted uranium (according to other data, of tungsten alloy), which is actually the basis of the projectile. A ballistic cap and tail stabilizers, the diameter of which is smaller than the caliber of the barrel, are attached to the metal core.

For a longer projectile, an improved master device was created. It has a large length and the presence of two zones of contact. In front of the device there is a large cylinder of the usual look, and the second zone is created by three rear supports. After exiting the barrel such a master device is reset and frees the projectile.


"Mango-M" and a sleeve with a propellant charge. Photo Btvt.narod.ru


According to available data, "Lead-1" has a mass of 4,6 kg and is capable of accelerating to speeds of 1750 m / s. Due to this, he punches up to 650 mm of homogeneous armor at a distance of shot 2000 m and zero meeting angle. It is known about the existence of the project “Lead-2”, which provided for the replacement of the core with a product made from another material. Thus, similar shells from uranium and tungsten could appear in the arsenals.

Due to the long length of the projectile of the new type could not be used with existing automatic loading serial tanks. This problem was solved in the middle of the two thousandth. The T-90A armored vehicles of the new series were completed with modified automatic rifles compatible with “long” projectiles. Subsequently, upgraded T-72B3 began to receive similar equipment. Thus, a significant part of the technique of armored troops can use not only the relatively old "Mango" with limited characteristics.

“Vacuum” for “Almaty”

The observed increase in the protection characteristics of the potential enemy’s tanks is a real challenge for weapons developers. Further research work led to conclusions about the need for a new increase in the length of the munition. The optimal ratio of characteristics could show BOPS 1000 mm long, but such a projectile, for obvious reasons, could not be used with the 2А46 gun and its automatic loader.


Projectile 3BM-46 with a master device. Photo Fofanov.armor.kiev.ua


The way out of this situation was the creation of a completely new instrument with additional equipment. A promising gun later became known under the symbol 2А82, and the new projectile received the code "Vacuum". From a certain time, the new armament complex began to be considered in the context of the project of the promising tank “Armata”. In case of successful completion of the work on the gun and the BOPS, the new tank could get them as the main weapon.

According to some sources, the project "Vacuum" turned in favor of new developments. In connection with the beginning of the development of the 2А82-1М instrument, instead of such a projectile, it was proposed to create a smaller BOPS with the “Vacuum-1” cipher. It was supposed to have a length of “total” 900 mm and be fitted with a carbide core. In the recent past, representatives of the defense industry mentioned that organizations from Rosatom were involved in the development of a new projectile. Their participation is due to the use of depleted uranium.

According to some reports, a projectile called Vacuum 2 is being created in parallel. By design, it should be similar to the product with the unit, but it is different material. It is proposed to make a tungsten alloy, more familiar to domestic BOPS. Also for use with the 2А82-М instrument are high-explosive fragmentation munitions with controlled explosions with the code “Telnik” and the 3UBK21 “Sprinter” guided missile. Exact information about creating a new 125-mm cumulative projectile is not yet available.


The main tank T-14 with a weapon 2А82-1М. Photo NPK "Uralvagonzavod" / uvz.ru


The appearance and exact technical characteristics of the perspective BOPS of the “Vacuum” family have not yet been specified. It is only known that a projectile with a uranium core will pierce the order of 900-1000 mm homogeneous armor. Probably, such characteristics can be obtained at an ideal angle of impact. No other details.

Perspective "Slate"

According to various reports of past years, promising domestic-made tanks were also supposed to receive an armor-piercing projectile called the Slate. However, there was not too much information about him, which led to confusion and errors. So, for some time it was believed that the "Slate" is intended for new 125-mm guns. Now it is known that this product is planned to be used with a more powerful 2A83 gun of 152 mm caliber.

Apparently, the projectile for high-power guns in its appearance will be similar to other members of its class. It will receive a large elongation core, equipped with a ballistic cap and an armor-piercing damper in the head part, as well as a stabilizer of a relatively small caliber. Earlier it was reported that the projectiles "Slate-1" and "Slate-2" will be equipped with tungsten and uranium cores. In this case, any data on the parameters of armor penetration of new projectiles are missing.


125-mm 2A82-1M dummies. Photo by Yuripasholok.livejournal.com


According to various estimates, based on the caliber and the estimated energy indicators, the “leads” will be able to penetrate at least 1000-1200 mm of homogeneous armor at the optimum angle of impact. However, there are information about some of the typical problems in the development of such ammunition. Due to certain objective limitations, the energy efficiency of the shot for the 152-mm guns may be lower than for systems of smaller caliber. Whether it will be possible to cope with such problems and to fully use the energy reserve of the propellant charge is unknown.

A promising tank gun 2А83 is currently being developed in the context of the further development of the Armat’s unified tracked platform. The already created main tank T-14 is equipped with an uninhabited turret with an 2-82-1-gun. In the foreseeable future, a new version of the tank is expected, featuring a different combat compartment and a more powerful 2-83 gun. Together with them, the improved "Armata" will also receive the BOPS of the "Grimel" line.

Shells present and future

Currently, the armored forces have several armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells intended for use with instruments of the rather old but successful 2-46 line. A significant part of the main tanks of existing models has a relatively old automatic loading, and therefore can only use the shells "Mango" and older products. At the same time, the later series T-90A tanks, as well as the upgraded T-72B3 tanks, are equipped with improved automatic loaders, due to which relatively long shells of the Lead line can be used.


Estimated appearance of BOPS type "Slate". Figure Otvaga2004.mybb.ru


BOPS 3BM-42 and 3БМ-46 have high enough characteristics, and thanks to this they are able to fight a wide range of targets present on the battlefield. At the same time, sub-caliber ammunition is not the only means of fighting enemy tanks. For the same purpose, our tanks can use guided missiles and cumulative shots. Thus, "Mango", "Lead" and other tank ammunition provide combat against various targets in a wide range of ranges.

The next generation of Russian tanks, while represented only by the Armata T-14, is equipped with a new 2A82-1М, which shows higher performance and is compatible with new ammunition. The new family of shells and rockets will provide a noticeable increase in combat qualities and is fully capable of bringing Armata to the leading position in the world.

It is no secret that in the recent past there has been a significant backlog of domestic BOPS from modern foreign samples. However, the situation is gradually changing, and new models of this kind are coming into service. In the foreseeable future, armored units will receive fundamentally new combat vehicles with modern weapons and ammunition. There is every reason to believe that the gap will at least narrow. Moreover, we cannot exclude the possibility of advancing foreign competitors with clear consequences for the combat capability of the army.

On the materials of the sites:
http://vpk.mane/
http://ria.ru/
http://tass.ru/
http://otvaga2004.ru/
http://btvt.narod.ru/
http://russianarms.ru/
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/
http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

71 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67 17 August 2018 07: 03 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    BOPS have actually reached their peak in perfection. And an increase in armor penetration by them can actually be achieved only by increasing the caliber of tank guns, and this is a dead end
    1. prodi 17 August 2018 09: 39 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      why caliber? Add a “burn” to the current one and upgrade in a circle (barrel, bolt, recoil)
      1. svp67 17 August 2018 20: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: prodi
        Add a “burn” to the current one and upgrade in a circle (barrel, bolt, recoil)

        This path turns out to be EXPENSIVELY and at the present stage we do not realize it in series.
        1. prodi 18 August 2018 08: 04 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          I meant that the caliber of the gun for BOPS is generally a secondary parameter, rather, on the contrary, the smaller one will have a shorter barrel and more shells
    2. Nikolaevich I 17 August 2018 09: 52 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Quote: svp67
      0
      BOPS have actually reached their peak in perfection. And an increase in armor penetration by them can actually be achieved only by increasing the caliber of tank guns, and this is blunt

      1. I also see another option: hypersonic active-reactive tank shells ... both adjustable and uncontrolled.
      1. Cherry Nine 17 August 2018 10: 05 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        hypersonic active-reactive tank shells ... as adjustable

        For the price of the T-72 everyone will go.
        1. Nikolaevich I 17 August 2018 11: 47 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          For the price of the T-72 everyone will go.

          Do you work as chief accountant in Moscow? Or not? Then where did you get such data for such a categorical conclusion? request In the United States, they are working on hypersonic SCEM and "don't blow it!"
          1. Cherry Nine 17 August 2018 12: 19 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            For the price of the T-72 everyone will go.

            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            In the United States working on hypersonic SCEM

            The United States in general and Lockheed Martin in particular are just enchanting prices of weapons and are famous.
      2. prodi 17 August 2018 10: 37 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        the current BOPSs are already hypersonic and with an actual direct-shot range of 1-2 km are sufficient, to accelerate them at this distance with the added accelerator - that cutting the piglet - a lot of fuss, but little use. Although maybe it would be worth a try
        1. Nikolaevich I 17 August 2018 11: 50 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: prodi
          0
          the current BOPS and so hypersonic and with the actual range of a direct shot in 1-2 km are sufficient,

          It’s noticeable that you thought “superficially”! Look deeply! hi
          1. prodi 17 August 2018 12: 05 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            "in the lump" - it is easier to increase the weight of the blanks, long, in my opinion, and less ricochet
            1. silver_roman 17 August 2018 12: 37 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              the increase in flight speed seems to be proportional to the energy released, which means that barrel wear will be higher.
              at the expense of the rebound, it seems like there are so-called "normalizers" on shells, which, when the shell contacts the armor, add the first closer to the right angle. Although maybe it just goes to BBshki. I probably mixed everything together: people, horses)))
              1. prodi 17 August 2018 12: 42 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                by normalization: the extension of the “long” projectile due to bending, compared to short, due to the deformable cap, it seems to me personally more confident
            2. Nikolaevich I 17 August 2018 13: 15 New
              • 1
              • 3
              -2
              Quote: prodi
              0
              "in the lump" - it is easier to increase the weight of the blanks, long, in my opinion, and less ricochet

              You still have a third attempt! Oh well .... In the tank units of Israel, they are taught to shoot from 4 km and hit ... In modern tank shots, the BOPS, when they fly out of the barrel, really have hypersonic speed ... but, in the end, the "prose of life" interferes : 1. With increasing shot distance, the kinetic energy of the BOPS drops ... 2. The MBT armor protection is being improved and not every BOPS is capable of hitting a modern tank! The hypersonic SKEM is capable of turning on the solid propellant rocket launcher in front of the armored target itself and significantly increasing its speed (kinetic energy), after capturing the ARGSNMM target and “measuring” the distance to the target ...
              1. prodi 17 August 2018 13: 41 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Yes, let the Israelis learn what they want. For 2-3 km distances and more, it’s more reasonable to have an ATGM with a soft start
                1. Vladimir 5 2 October 2018 19: 00 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  You are absolutely right, under the current conditions of network-centric warfare, it’s clearly not possible to get to tank battles. Prior to approaches, long-range air-based weapons will be destroyed as they approach. Let us recall the American pogroms by the tanks of Iraqi tank units, perhaps these were the last confrontations of large tank masses .. And what are the reasons, the advantage in night sights nullified all Iraqi tank efforts, So further advantage in what will be the reason for victory-defeat. Perhaps the development of aviation anti-tank weapons will be decisive, and the consideration of BOPS is only out of sporting interest, but in fact it will be of very little importance. It is more useful to direct all efforts to anti-tank (and other armored and protected targets) systems of weapons, from air-based (UAVs, barrage of ammunition), to ground-based ATGMs of the third and higher generation. whose carriers can be literally everything, which means that there is no need for tank anti-tank BOPS ...
              2. Narak-zempo 17 August 2018 14: 03 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                How much does the speed of modern BOPS fall at a distance of a direct shot? Percentage units? Moreover, the heavier the projectile with an equal caliber, the smaller this value.
                Against the scrap, there is still no reception, in the sense that BOPS is the most difficult object to intercept KAZ, its energy is difficult to efficiently dissipate with the help of remote sensing, you can’t stop it with a thin anti-cumulative screen - only by grossly increasing the mass of the reservation. The question is what will come to a standstill earlier.

                An interesting solution would be to use heavier missiles with a cassette warhead with self-aiming elements (in sufficient quantity to saturate the KAZ) instead of an ATGM with a cumulative warhead launched through the barrel, placing them in a vertical installation like a ship’s one. If the Jews on Merkava managed to push the landing compartment into the tank, then a place for a dozen missiles can be found.
                1. prodi 17 August 2018 14: 38 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  An interesting solution would be to use heavier missiles with a cassette warhead with self-aiming elements (in sufficient quantity to saturate the KAZ) instead of an ATGM with a cumulative warhead launched through the barrel, placing them in a vertical installation like a ship’s one.

                  The idea is not bad, but hardly through the trunk. In addition to KAZ (target), it can also count on DZ
                  1. Narak-zempo 17 August 2018 14: 50 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: prodi
                    hardly through the trunk

                    So I say, a vertical installation in the hull behind the tower, like on a ship.
                    1. prodi 17 August 2018 15: 07 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Guilty, did not look.
                      Jews, of course, are great originals, but if you really increase the weight of the tank, then only with the aim of increasing armor protection (and reducing the work of the recoil)
                  2. Narak-zempo 17 August 2018 15: 18 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: prodi
                    In addition to KAZ, the target can rely on DZ

                    Impact core on the roof of the tower / MTO - it is problematic to cover them with DZ.
                    1. prodi 17 August 2018 15: 27 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      the roof of the tower - no (especially our tashek), MTO - wiser, yes
                2. svp67 17 August 2018 20: 44 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  How much does the speed of modern BOPS fall at a distance of a direct shot? Percentage units?

                  So he no longer has speed, but stability drops. And any fluctuation, this is a sharp decrease in armor penetration
                  1. Narak-zempo 18 August 2018 11: 38 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: svp67
                    So he no longer has speed, but stability drops

                    The mechanics of the process are incomprehensible. Explain.
                    1. svp67 19 August 2018 07: 57 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Narak-zempo
                      The mechanics of the process are incomprehensible. Explain.

                      Everything is simple, the projectile flies by inertia, and even spins, and even elongates greatly to increase breakdown properties, and the longer it is, the more difficult it is to maintain stability, and as soon as the speed drops a little, stability starts to fall catastrophically. He just starts to "sausage". Do not forget about the detachable pallet, it also contributes to the loss of stability, it is also impossible to make the stabilizer more effective, since at the moment of firing the powder gases, it is thanks to him that the gases begin to spin the projectile in the opposite direction, from the direction of rotation that the projectile exercises during the flight.
                      1. Narak-zempo 19 August 2018 08: 07 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: svp67
                        and the longer, the more difficult it is to maintain stability

                        So it seems that the longer, the greater the distance from the stabilizer to the center of mass, and the greater the shoulder of the force acting on the stabilizer, i.e., in fact, its stabilizing effect. No?
                      2. Simargl 21 August 2018 12: 41 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: svp67
                        it is thanks to him that the gases begin to spin the projectile in the opposite direction, from the direction of rotation that the projectile carries out during the flight.
                        It does not spin when it leaves the trunk. In any case, ours.
          2. Grid 17 August 2018 15: 22 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            It’s noticeable that you thought “superficially”! Look deeply!

            1700 m / s / 320m / s = 5,3 Mach.
            Hypersound, however ...
            1. Nikolaevich I 18 August 2018 04: 17 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Grille
              1700 m / s / 320m / s = 5,3 Mach.
              Hypersound, however ...

              So sho? What do you want to say next? request
        2. Nikolaevich I 18 August 2018 04: 27 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: prodi
          +3
          the current BOPS and so hypersonic and with the actual range of a direct shot in 1-2 km are sufficient,

          So what for the replacement of the 120-mm gun L / 44 goes L / 55? The replacement of the 120-mm gun-130-mm gun 130 / 51? What cue were the 140 mm guns made of? What hangover does 125-mm 2A46-5 replace with the 125-mm 2A82-1М and 152-mm 2А83? fool
          1. Nikolaevich I 18 August 2018 04: 37 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            PS Increasing the caliber of tank guns ... lengthening the "crowbars" have limitations (!) And are approaching the limit! Very soon, the increase in the kinetic energy of tank shells, their initial speeds and armor-piercing abilities will not be associated with the improvement of "traditional" (!) Shells and an increase in the "power" of tank guns!
            1. prodi 18 August 2018 11: 22 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              for some reason deleted the comment. I repeat: the change of generations of guns is done for a variety of reasons (including, with the aim of increasing the power of the general military and anti-tank systems), and by no means under the new BOPS
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. svp67 17 August 2018 20: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        “I see” another option: hypersonic active-reactive tank shells ... both adjustable and uncontrolled

        But this is no longer BOPS
        1. Nikolaevich I 18 August 2018 04: 14 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          But this is no longer BOPS


          6-armor-piercing core (penetrator); 7-RDTT
          What BOPS do you still need? Yes, it differs from the "traditional" BOPS; but ,, look at the root "!
          1. svp67 18 August 2018 04: 43 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            What BOPS do you still need?

            I do not deny that the thought does not stand still, but is there enough speed and power for the outflow of powder gases to dramatically increase the speed? Indeed, according to the scheme, it is already visible that the frontal resistance of the projectile will be greater, and that means the initial velocity of the projectile will be lower than that of the classic BOPS. It will have to be accelerated. RTDT itself will be separated during the flight or not? Will there be a plastic bend in the place where the jet will hit? Many questions, but worth a try
      5. yehat 18 August 2018 05: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I join. subcalibers will gradually die out, replaced by ammunition with a long dispersal
        and potentially faster. In addition, in-flight projectile control systems will soon become widespread.
        1. Narak-zempo 18 August 2018 13: 35 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          ATGM kinetic actions will be much harder and more expensive than classic ones.
          The most “dynamic” rocket in history - the American Sprint Sentinel missile defense system - gained 10 misses in 3 s. For anti-tank ammunition, obviously, even greater acceleration dynamics will be required. In addition, a hypersonic warhead can be made not “deaf”, but it will be “blind” unambiguously, which means that the guidance system can only be a command system, vulnerable to interference.
          In any case, at short distances, such a rocket, not having time to gain speed (do not forget that the rocket is a body of variable mass, and in the initial section it is heavier and accelerates more slowly), will be inferior to the classic BPS. So, equipping them with a ground carrier (tank), which in a real battle at the intersection will not be able to realize their advantages, is irrational
          1. prodi 18 August 2018 13: 47 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            land-based ATGMs with kinetic warheads - unlikely, but uncontrolled aircraft - can be very
            1. Narak-zempo 18 August 2018 15: 10 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: prodi
              but uncontrolled aviation

              What is the probability of getting NAR into the tank? The cumulative armaments are cheap and compact enough to fire in dozens in one salvo. Kinetic will be much harder, because a penetrator weighing several kg must be accelerated to hypersonic speed - you won’t lift much. And most importantly, breathtakingly expensive. If a conventional shot with M829 BOPS for Abrams costs over 10 kilobax per unit, then imagine the price of a rocket (and this, in addition to uranium crowbar, and new recipes for solid fuel with high energy, and new materials). And so to sow the enemy’s battle formations with such missiles, with the expectation that out of a couple of dozen, no economy will pull.
              1. prodi 18 August 2018 15: 42 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well, somehow the quilted jackets somehow solved the problem of aiming free-falling bombs. In addition, the aviation NAR is not a bad initial speed?
                1. Narak-zempo 18 August 2018 17: 40 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: prodi
                  padded jackets solved the problem of aiming free-falling bombs

                  CVO bombs when dropped from horizontal flight - tens of meters. Dive bombers have long been gone.
                  Quote: prodi
                  In addition, the aviation NAR is not a bad initial speed?

                  In any case, subsonic. Otherwise, you just don’t have time to recognize the target and attack it. And we need to get a speed greater than BOPS (otherwise, what's the point in all of this). And it doesn’t make much difference to accelerate to Mach 7-10 from scratch or from Mach 0,5-0,8.
                  1. prodi 18 August 2018 18: 39 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    but why? the plane in attack: approximately - 0,7 mach + accelerator discs (very wide) + acceleration of free fall by 5-6 km + weight discs (not even decent)
                    1. Narak-zempo 18 August 2018 21: 15 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Actually, the topic is how to replace BOPS as the main tank ammunition, from which it is required to hit enemy tanks in the forehead, in the most protected areas. Aviation has more opportunities to attack from other angles, a rich range of ammunition. It can be a heavy missile of the AGM-65 type or a large-caliber corrected bomb (it doesn’t have to be a direct hit at all - it will destroy it with a close explosion), or a container with the same SPE, or a salvo of ordinary NAR. Making kinetic uncontrollable, with a low probability of a direct hit, is inefficient.
      6. Horse, people and soul 22 September 2018 19: 56 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        At a distance of 5 km hypersonic? Well yes. Adjustable? It is unlikely.
    3. Nikolaevich I 17 August 2018 09: 56 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      PS 2. It is possible to create self-aiming projectiles with a "nuclear strike" warhead ... (possibly with or without trajectory extension ...)!
    4. _Ugene_ 17 August 2018 19: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And an increase in armor penetration by them can actually be achieved only by increasing the caliber of tank guns, and this is a dead end
      not caliber but the length of the bops
      1. svp67 18 August 2018 04: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: _Ugene_
        not caliber but the length of the bops

        Not so simple with a long one. The volume of the fighting compartment of the tank is limited, respectively, and the length of the "crowbar" having reached a certain limit, it will not be able to extend further. And this limit has already been reached. An elongated BOPS will require an increase in flight speed, otherwise it will simply cease to be stable, which will require an increase in internal pressure in the barrel channel, this will lead to either an increase in the wall thickness of the gun or the use of more expensive alloys for its manufacture, the existing tools will not work. Since they will either be torn apart, or they will very quickly warm up to such values ​​when the trunk begins to bend more and more. Which, accordingly, leads to more wear of the bore and higher requirements for the FCS ... I’m silent about the new materials for BOPS so that it does not break from internal stresses during firing and flying
    5. APASUS 18 August 2018 20: 30 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: svp67
      BOPS have actually reached their peak in perfection. And an increase in armor penetration by them can actually be achieved only by increasing the caliber of tank guns, and this is a dead end

      Let me disagree. I think, nevertheless, options are still possible, progress does not stand still. The weak point of BOPS is control, but what about giving control, changing conditions of aiming and a blow from the top?
    6. Vadim237 19 August 2018 11: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The Germans do not agree with you,
      130 mm tank gun
    7. NF68 25 October 2018 16: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: svp67
      BOPS have actually reached their peak in perfection. And an increase in armor penetration by them can actually be achieved only by increasing the caliber of tank guns, and this is a dead end


      Due to more durable materials for gun barrels, more modern types of gunpowder and more durable materials from which subcaliber shells are made, a significant increase in the thickness of pierced armor can be achieved. This has been happening for several decades.
  2. Romario_Argo 17 August 2018 09: 24 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    for the T-14 with a 152-mm gun, you can completely abandon the BOPS - and load the ATUs 3UBK21 Sprinter and OF with controlled detonation
    1. Nikolaevich I 17 August 2018 10: 00 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      For 152-mm tank guns, it is simpler and cheaper to create adjustable or self-aiming shells ...
    2. prodi 17 August 2018 10: 11 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      "slow" shells (including ATGMs) are more likely to be vulnerable to KAZ
  3. voyaka uh 17 August 2018 12: 47 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    This is what Abrams’s crowbar looks like:
    1. Vadim237 17 August 2018 19: 05 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      The future will not be for BOPS, but for kinetic anti-tank missiles - 30 kilograms at a speed of 2700 meters per second.
  4. pepel79 17 August 2018 15: 33 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    I want to disagree with the above statements. Available in the arsenal of BPS and their armor penetration are quite sufficient for modern MBT potential friends, given the chosen doctrine of the state. I will explain. We are not going to attack and arrange conflicts in eastern and African countries. Penetration in homogeneous armor is indicated at a shot distance of 2000 m. Such an average distance can hardly be found even in desert areas (if Mikhail Baryatinsky doesn’t change his memory, he estimates it in the Near East theater of operations at about 1400 -1600 m.). The European theater of operations on the line of sight factor is an order of magnitude smaller (suppose 1000 m.). At this distance, taking into account insignificant losses in speed, compared with the initial one, the declared penetration can be multiplied (approximately) by 2 (this is physics), which is completely enough, for MBT, as if we were not talking about the development of the 70s, with the previous principles of protection (mounting armor, with the development of 80-90 years). However, this does not mean that there is no need for modern developments, and in this area, while not shouting that everything was lost and sawing for scrap, thousands of T-72 workers, and emptying the country's budget, sculpting still raw ARMATS, in which the BPS are longer or the caliber is larger and, as a consequence, the penetration is higher than that of the T-72.
    So, for reference, Jews Sherman with 105 graph paper, removed from service (somewhere in 80), and not just removed but also them and boiled for bucks. And we left the USSR hurt, for scrap. This is absurd. You don’t think so. But that's my personal opinion.
    1. merkava-2bet 17 August 2018 19: 16 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      In a desert and flat terrain, the range increases, up to 3-4 kilometers, and also on hilly terrain like the Golan and Ramat Golan, from personal experience, we never shot closer than 1400 meters, an average of 2200-2600 meters and this is on Merkava- 2Bet Meshupar, the first models of Merkava-4 tanks were fired at an average of 3000-3300 meters, and this does not take into account the Lahat guided missile with a range of up to 8000 meters. And to whom Israel sold the Sherman in the 80s, is it very interesting?
      1. pepel79 20 August 2018 13: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Chile, about 150-170 pieces ... There were 2 more African countries but there were units. hi
    2. yehat 18 August 2018 05: 11 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      you speak very strange, even ignoring experience during the Second World War. Do you know that in the 44th year IS-2 stopped approaching closer than 2 km to the enemy?
      In addition, there is often a tactical niche for ambushes with clear sighting lines of 4-7 km, even in mountainous areas, not to mention flat Europe, where forests are cut down.
      Your primitive conclusions can lead to the elementary and systematic beating of tanks.
      1. pepel79 18 August 2018 11: 36 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I'm sorry you're right. Europe is cut down forests, cut hills, filled gullies and asphalted rivers ... You studied it on the political map (moreover, it’s medieval and flat on whales, oh no elephants, but still flat). I may be wrong, but I'm talking about average values, assuming both plus and minus and the whole theater from the northern seas to the Mediterranean, and you sir clings to one section. Although the Golan’s have at least the steppes of Ukraine in Europe (that Belarus has only forests and swamps), not the whole theater, read, be aware of what you read and then just write.
    3. Konfuciy 5 February 2019 10: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Dear, here's a little bit about booking abrams that are in service now, and not in distant years: M1A2SEP / SEPv2 / M1A1AIMv2 / FEP (2000)
      TOWER: 940-960mm from BOPS / 1310-1620? Mm from the COP
      CASE: n / a / n / a.
      Excuse me, how are you going to punch them? not a single shell / guided missile in the arsenal can penetrate even a tower, not to mention the hull.
      But if you look at the nomenclature of shells of the same Abrams, you will be surprised to find that they can guaranteed penetrate any of our tanks (well, except perhaps for the mythical Armata). Therefore, we have something to strive for and care about.
  5. _Ugene_ 17 August 2018 20: 02 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    As our tankers say, there really is nothing newer in the troops than Mango. And its armor penetration (maximum armor penetration at a distance of 2 km is determined at 500 mm. At a 60 ° meeting angle at the same distance, this characteristic is reduced to 220 mm.) Is completely insufficient to defeat the intended enemy’s MBT. Considering that the Jewish kaz is already put on European abrams, the question arises - how to hit them? Kaz will work against pturas, bops will not take forehead, how will you need to board the WWII?
    Just don’t have to give arguments like - we’ve got together with NATO to fight tanks and so on and so forth, with such arguments you can only leave the nuclear triad and cut the rest, we already went through it.
    1. merkava-2bet 17 August 2018 22: 01 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      We need to start developing guided shells with a semi-active laser guidance system, like Lahat, and then with the IR or mm-band radars, for the first time. And finally take the Armata and T-90MS tank, and not listen to the ravings of the generals and embezzlers, this is the main problem of mother Of Russia.
      1. yehat 18 August 2018 05: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, not so bad. even without penetration a shell hit is not very pleasant.
        but passively ignoring a decrease in the effectiveness of the fire is somehow very strange.
  6. philosopher 17 August 2018 20: 44 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Why do I need BOPS in caliber 152 mm if the gain from them compared to that in the caliber of 125 mm of the last modification is not so great as a loss in the excessive mass of the gun and a decrease in the number of shells in the combat launcher (+ this and a reduced barrel life)? A high-explosive fragmentation projectile with remote directional detonation will sweep away all attached equipment (KAZ, DZ, surveillance devices, various sensors, and everything else), as well as damage to the gun or trucks with a sheaf of high-speed fragments. There is only one chance: KAZ must intercept such a projectile at a safe distance, but there are limitations too.
    It is not necessary to break through the armor, you can disable an enemy tank, for example, by immobilizing it, and then direct the Coalition-SV at it, firing from a safe distance. Again, in the caliber 152 mm, the shock core, which is formed much farther from the armor than the cumulative stream, may also be beyond the reach of the KAZ.
    Well, the last argument: the original purpose of the tank is not to confront another tank, but to destroy ... yes everyone knows that; and for this there is nothing better than a "suitcase with explosives."
  7. bk0010 18 August 2018 20: 30 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Is the Makarov cap for BOPS completely useless?
    BOPS bad projectile: very expensive and consumes the barrel resource very intensively. But it’s difficult to replace it: the reduced armor resistance for cumulative ammunition is much higher than for BOPS. In good conditions, the armor penetration of a cumulative charge is up to 5 calibers. An idea comes up: put a low-caliber cannon cannon on the tank with a caliber of about 300 mm, so that the cumulative projectile takes up to 1500 mm. But there are a lot of problems, the main one of them - with a low ballistic projectile, horseradish will hit the tank, you need to make it manageable. But there is already a similar crap - the ATGM is called, and if you let it out of the gun, then you can score on the caliber. But BOPS hunting is a substitute. Therefore, the question arises: how many kg of explosives do you need to blow up a tank? Previously, there were already such armor-piercing shells; against them they created an anti-fragmentation strike. But progress does not stand still: can modern explosives in a modern caliber already destroy the frontal armor of tanks? The 152 mm tank gun with a single HE shell seems like an attractive idea. Well, or 2 shells: cheaper, against the infantry, and expensive, with a new Indian explosive (I forgot the name), against tanks, but not a barrel breaking down with a crowbar. Plus, it will be possible to return to the rifled gun.
    And the last question: what is the problem of covering the MTO from the shock core? Is it really impossible over the MTO (20-50 centimeters, so as not to interfere with the engine cooling) to place an armored plate with DZ on the supports? At the same time, IR visibility for all anti-tank helicopters will decrease. Or vice versa, put the IR simulator on top (in the most stable place), such as "beat here." If you can’t cool the diesel engine in this situation, then you can place additional. radiators below or on the sides. But all the Javelins can be carried in the trash.
    1. Narak-zempo 19 August 2018 12: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: bk0010
      And the last question: what is the problem of covering the MTO from the shock core? Is it really impossible over the MTO (20-50 centimeters, so as not to interfere with the engine cooling) to place an armored plate with DZ on the supports?

      DZ and with BOPS copes, to put it mildly, not very, and the speed of the shock core is at least one and a half to two times higher. So, you can hide behind only armor. And the penetration of such ammunition, at least not less than 100 mm. In addition, when attacking from above, the penetration angle is close to normal. Can you imagine how much a 100 mm plate with an area of ​​several square meters will weigh?
      At one time, a similar problem finished off battleships just like artillery ships to counter their own kind. When the battle distance increased, shells (weighing more than a ton) began to fly mainly from above. And then it turned out that covering the deck, unlike the sides, with thick enough armor is simply impossible.
    2. Simargl 21 August 2018 13: 14 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: bk0010
      An idea appears: to put a low-caliber ballistic cannon on a tank of about 300 mm
      Yeah! Mortar 240 mm: here and the caliber self_to, and the projectile flies from above ...
      Quote: bk0010
      Therefore, the question arises: how many kg of explosives do you need to blow up a tank?
      Judging by your desires - no less than a ton! And to turn into a landscape - depending on the place.
      Quote: bk0010
      Previously, there were already such armor-piercing shells; against them they created an anti-fragmentation strike.
      Even not broken armor can, strangely enough, bend (even if it is more than 10 cm), and then everything that is hung on this bent section will fly inside the tank at a speed approximately equal to the velocity of the projectile. And then even pieces of paint with pieces of rust will be cooler than shurikens, not to mention fasteners, such as bolts / gadgets.
      Quote: bk0010
      Is it really impossible over the MTO (20-50 centimeters, so as not to interfere with the engine cooling) to place an armored plate with DZ on the supports?
      Collect a model of any tank, experiment. Tell me.
  8. Ber
    Ber 19 August 2018 06: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In everyday language in NATO, depleted uranium cores are called silver bullet.
    Now Rosatom is developing such silver bullets for the modernized T-72 \ 80 \ 90.
    Who knows what the NATO people call tungsten cores?
    1. Bad thing 21 August 2018 16: 31 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      In the caliber 152 mm OFS carries at least 7.5 kg of explosives. For the failure (not to be confused with the destruction) of any modern MBT is enough. After the hit, change the optics and treat the crew.
  9. Evgesha 10 September 2018 21: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I read the whole branch .... damn such a confusion .. by God, the word people chez rushes from one extreme to the other ..
    As children.
    All discussions about new guns must begin with new shells.
    For the projectile determines the gun !!!
    That is, we will determine the tasks that a new projectile should solve, create such a projectile, and then we sculpt down under it. all. and no need here to interfere in a bunch of new shells and old fluffs ....

    Next - kinetic ATGMs. Well, what can I say !!!
    You look at the calendar - right now, 2018. The development of kinetic ATGMs is the 1980s !!!!!!
    And something from those times no one has created a production model.
    Experienced, experimental - yes, that was the case. But things did not go beyond experiments.
    I think you are adults and you will guess why.

    Purely my opinion of an amateur.
    BOPS - reached the limit based on current technology.
    BOPS core is made either from tungsten or from uranium.
    But tomorrow metallurgists will create an alloy of titanium with an admixture of tungsten and americium and such a core will flash 1500mm of homogeneous armor with 2km .....