Military Review

Nuclear missile for "Almaty"

65
To effectively solve the assigned combat tasks, a modern or promising tank should be distinguished by high firepower. These parameters can be increased by various methods, including the most radical ones - for example, using shells with a nuclear warhead of low power. Projects of this kind have been repeatedly developed in the past and may be created in our time. For example, in the recent past, curious rumors circulated about the possibility of creating nuclear shells for promising tank on the Armata platform.


According to open sources, several types of nuclear artillery shells were in service with the Russian and Soviet armies at various times. Such products were produced in all major calibers from 152 mm and above and were intended for use by land, coastal and naval artillery. In the first place, they should have been used by special force artillery formations. Nuclear shells were considered as a supplement to the standard, necessary in extreme cases.

News and rumors about "Armata"

The issue of the use of tactical nuclear munitions in the armament complex of promising armored vehicles has been discussed for many years. It is quite natural that such products are also discussed in the context of the Armata program, which involves the creation of various types of armored vehicles. Last year, some interesting news about the latest Russian tanks and shells for them appeared in the domestic and foreign press.


MBT T-14 "Armata". Photo NPK "Uralvagonzavod" / uvz.ru


In early February, 2017, the management of the corporation "Uralvagonzavod" told about the current work on the creation of new ammunition. It was argued that new shots with enhanced characteristics were being developed, and the state corporation Rosatom was involved in their creation. From those reports, it follows that Uralvagonzavod and Rosatom are working on the creation of new armor-piercing shells with a uranium core.

Just a couple of months later, in April, more severe and frightening news appeared in the foreign media. With reference to sources in the Russian industry, it was asserted that the new modification of the Armata T-14 tank would receive a promising 152-mm gun, and with it a nuclear projectile. No technical details were given at that time.

A month later, more detailed data about the work of Rosatom appeared in the domestic press. So, Rossiyskaya Gazeta assumed that the participation of this corporation in the development of shells is connected with the presence of a number of necessary technologies and materials. To undermine the nuclear warhead of the implosive scheme, initiating charges of conventional explosives are used. In this case, initiating charges and standard high-explosive artillery shells are built on the basis of various explosives. It was assumed that the new ammunition for the guns will be used more powerful explosives, which are still used only in specific areas.

Unfortunately, open and accessible data do not yet allow us to establish how these assumptions are true. However, with their help, you can replenish the list of versions and forecasts for the further development of domestic nuclear weapons. From last year’s news, it followed that Uralvagonzavod and other large enterprises are busy creating new projectiles of all main classes: both armor-piercing and high-explosive fragmentation.

Atomic past

The development of nuclear artillery for artillery began in the fifties of the last century, and quickly brought the desired results. In the early stages, the main problem was to reduce the size of the product while achieving the desired characteristics. As a result история Soviet nuclear shells began with the largest caliber - 406 and 420 mm. In the future, the main design problems were solved, so that smaller products appeared.

According to open data, the least large and heavy tactical nuclear projectile of domestic development is the 3BB3 product. This ammunition is intended for howitzer artillery caliber 152 mm and has the dimensions of a standard projectile. Depending on the type of gun, the maximum firing range reaches 17-17,5 km. The power of a nuclear warhead - 2,5 CT. 3BB3 projectile could use towed and self-propelled guns of various types.

Curiously, the nuclear missile 3BB3 was the most compact, not only in the Soviet nomenclature of weapons. Due to the well-known difference of standard calibers, it still remains the smallest special ammunition in the world. Nevertheless, even with such characteristics, this product could provide a radical increase in the firepower of an artillery unit.

As far as is known, nuclear artillery shells with a caliber of less than 152 mm have not been developed in our country. Such projects were abandoned for a variety of technical and operational reasons. So, the development of 152-mm nuclear projectile was quite difficult, and further reduction in size led to the emergence of new problems. The decision of the latter was impossible or impractical. In addition, an 130 or 122 mm projectile must be distinguished by a reduced firing range, which increases the risk of a successful retaliatory strike.


Model of the projectile 3BB3. Picssr.com Photos


As a result, Soviet designers stopped the miniaturization of ammunition at a fairly large caliber. Further development of nuclear artillery went in other ways. Offered more advanced charges of different power, new methods of application, etc. In addition, there were projects of tanks adapted for the use of nuclear projectiles. However, in these cases it was decided to abandon the typical tank gauges of type 125 mm.

Potential "Almaty"

From a certain time, the process of reducing nuclear shells stopped, as a result of which tanks lost a real chance to get such ammunition. However, the further development of armored vehicles led to curious consequences: promising tanks again received a theoretical opportunity to become carriers of tactical nuclear weapons.

One way to increase the firepower of a tank is to increase the caliber of the gun. In the eighties, this concept was implemented in the form of several projects of guns and tanks. The most famous of these was an experienced tank "Object 292" with a gun LP-83 caliber 152 mm. The smooth-bore gun of the new type was slightly different from the 125-mm 2А46 in its dimensions, but at the same time it showed significant advantages in the main characteristics. Tests have shown that the "Object 292" at the expense of a powerful gun is capable of striking all existing and prospective tanks of the likely enemy.

Later, the “195 Object” tank was created and tested, also capable of showing the highest firing characteristics. His main weapon was also the 152-mm gun, supplemented by automatic loader. It was assumed that such weapons would effectively fire tanks of various types in an increased range of ranges. However, the “195 Object”, like its predecessor, was not out of the test stage.

It has long been known that the promising project of the main T-14 tank, built on the Armata platform, involves the use of different guns. In the basic version, such a tank should be equipped with a 2-82-1М “traditional” caliber 125 mm. This creates a new 152-mm gun 2-83 with enhanced performance. So, according to some information, with the help of a piercing projectile, she will be able to pierce up to 1 and armor. In addition, it can be used as a launcher for guided missiles with higher performance.

Over the past few years, the modification of the T-14 with a more powerful gun regularly appears in various statements and news, but information about the existence of a prototype is not yet available. However, it may appear in the near future and come to the test to demonstrate the new features.

The history of domestic tank building of the last decades shows the fundamental possibility of creating a modern main tank with an 152 caliber mm gun. First of all, the creation of such weapons and their carriers can significantly increase the firepower and combat qualities of tank units. In addition, there is a theoretical possibility of supplementing the existing ammunition with special shells. Depending on the task and the situation on the battlefield, the crew of the tank will be able to use armor-piercing, fragmentation or nuclear weapons.

Question of necessity

As we can see, the Russian defense industry has, at a minimum, a theoretical possibility of equipping prospective Armat tanks with increased-caliber guns capable of using nuclear ammunition. However, in this context there is a serious question: will the customer and the developer take advantage of this opportunity? It cannot be ruled out that the military and the designers will consider nuclear projectiles unnecessary and will not even launch their development.


"292 object". Photo by Vitalykuzmin.net


A nuclear projectile gives the tank an obvious advantage. A product with a power of about 1-2 kt can destroy not only a single target on the battlefield, but also a lot of other objects within a radius of tens to hundreds of meters. Thus, one tank will do the work of several artillery batteries with one shot. On it, however, all advantages of such weapon come to an end.

Problems and difficulties with nuclear shells for tanks begin almost at the design and production stages. Compact ammunition is not the most simple design task, and in the series it has a relatively high cost. In addition, such products can produce only individual enterprises, and only in small batches. Certain difficulties may arise during the transportation and storage of projectiles. In particular, there is a need for better storage facilities and appropriate protection.

Planning a tank strike with the possible use of nuclear projectiles presents a certain complexity. Such products cannot be applied to all targets in a row, and therefore it is necessary to determine who should be responsible for finding such objects and giving the command to defeat them. This should take into account the high power of the explosion and organize the shooting so that your troops do not fall into the danger zone. Finally, the 152-mm nuclear projectile — which may not be necessary during the battle — takes place in the tank laying and reduces the “normal” part of the ammunition set, exacerbating the characteristic problems of armored vehicles with heavy weapons.

It is also worth recalling the general problem of all tactical nuclear weapons. The use of such tools on the battlefield leads to the risk of a rapid escalation of the conflict. A pair of shots with nuclear projectiles can provoke a retaliatory strike by similar means, which increases the risk of a sharp deterioration of the situation and the subsequent exchange of full-scale nuclear missile strikes.

Assumptions and reality

At their core, nuclear artillery shells, regardless of the class of compatible guns, are specialized means of increasing firepower for solving specific tasks. Practice shows that in the overwhelming majority of situations, gunners or tank crews can do without such gain and use only regular projectiles of lesser power. Of course, a standard armor-piercing projectile cannot destroy an enemy tank company at one moment, like a nuclear weapon. However, it is much cheaper and easier to manufacture and operate, and is also unlikely to cause an escalation of the conflict with the most unpleasant consequences.

In general, the use of nuclear shells tank guns is not the best idea, which has many drawbacks. The feasibility of the creation and use of such weapons should be determined by military experts, taking into account the existing strategy and industry capabilities. It is possible that the Russian Ministry of Defense, having studied all the arguments, prospects and opportunities, will actually order the creation of new cannons and nuclear shells, or abandon them.

It is easy to see that last year's news about the participation of “Rosatom” in the development of new tank ammunition is not at all connected with the desire of the military to obtain nuclear projectiles. On the contrary, the experience and technologies of the nuclear industry are proposed to be used in the creation of conventional weapons. According to known data, nuclear scientists are involved in the development of armor-piercing shells with uranium cores and high-explosive ammunition based on new explosives for this field.

Thus, the development of domestic tank shells continues, thanks to which existing and advanced combat vehicles will be able to get modern and effective weapons. At the same time, the process of updating weapons is carried out without the use of radical ideas and solutions. It is worth recalling that the Russian Ministry of Defense did not officially announce its desire to create a nuclear projectile for a tank gun. At the same time, it did not speak about the absence of such plans.

On the materials of the sites:
http://tass.ru/
http://ria.ru/
https://rg.ru/
http://nvo.ng.ru/
http://janes.com/
https://globalsecurity.org/
http://btvt.info/
http://wio.ru/
Author:
65 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sergey Goncharov
    Sergey Goncharov 5 October 2018 05: 05
    -5
    In addition, a projectile of 130 or 122 mm caliber should have a reduced firing range, which increases the risk of a successful retaliatory strike.

    Nonsense. Strictly the opposite. Max. firing range with a 130 mm shell - 27150 m, 152,4 mm howitzer shell from D-20 - 17410 m.
    1. RuslanD36
      RuslanD36 5 October 2018 11: 27
      +6
      28 kilometers at 2a65 (MSTA). It all depends on the specific gun and shot.
      1. bayard
        bayard 5 October 2018 16: 41
        +5
        Donetsk.
        The man compared the 130mm naval gun. caliber with a land howitzer? Then he should look at the characteristics of 152 mm. guns of cruisers like "Chapaev" - 40 km. And also on the capabilities of the "Coalition" - up to 70 km. active-reactive.
        1. Sergey Goncharov
          Sergey Goncharov 5 October 2018 23: 48
          0
          I understand that Donetsk is a "sea" city laughing laughing - but you still consider - 130-mm caliber and land also. In this case, it meant the "good old" 130-mm gun M-46. wink
          1. bayard
            bayard 6 October 2018 02: 01
            +3
            Donetsk.
            130 mm. the caliber is traditionally considered to be marine, as well as the caliber of coast guard batteries. But the M-46 has a maximum range of not 27 m, but 150 m. And the aiming range is 37 m.
            And the M-46 was developed at the basic operating time on a marine gun, which was put on destroyers of the pre-war construction.
            However, you cannot stick a nuclear charge into such ammunition, and there is no reason to.
            And yet, yes, Donetsk is a sea city, in 2014 our Ukrainian patrol boat was sunk on a tank from Azov. wink
            1. Sergey Goncharov
              Sergey Goncharov 7 October 2018 01: 30
              +1
              the M-46 has a maximum range not of 27 m, but 150 m

              Even 38000 m. But this is an ERFB-BB type projectile. Which were not in the USSR and in the "space of the former USSR" there are also none.
              Nuclear artillery shells with a caliber of less than 6 "were developed in the USSR (for example, for the D-30), and the possibility of their creation was recognized as proven. But they were considered inexpedient, primarily for political reasons.
            2. Aviator_
              Aviator_ 7 October 2018 21: 55
              0
              And I read that from the ATGM the dill boat was drowned then.
    2. Cannonball
      Cannonball 5 October 2018 18: 28
      +1
      Invalid comparison. The range of the "Hyacinth" is up to 30,5 km, the "Coalition" has even more.
    3. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 6 October 2018 02: 08
      0
      The Russian Ministry of Defense has not officially announced its desire to create a nuclear shell for a tank gun. At the same time, it did not speak about the absence of such plans.

      "Is there life on Mars, there is no life on Mars - science does not know this!"
      Jokes as a joke, but something I did not notice in the article a separate paragraph about the crew in a tank with special shells. Or will they not be "phoning" and will calmly wait for their "exit"? And what is the opinion of the specialists of the Armored Directorate of interest?
  2. Ace Tambourine
    Ace Tambourine 5 October 2018 07: 11
    +6
    To have such a shell in the BC is like carrying a grenade in your pocket without a check, but with an intercepted rubber strap ...
    Arrival of any random response to the tower is not considered? 5 km. dirty area will be guaranteed.
    1. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack 5 October 2018 07: 16
      +2
      Quote: Ace of Diamonds
      To have such a shell in BC is like carrying a grenade in your pocket without a check

      Well, for Tulip, the special mine was ... what is the difference?
      1. Ace Tambourine
        Ace Tambourine 5 October 2018 07: 38
        0
        Drona not like flies divorced ..
      2. Waltasar
        Waltasar 5 October 2018 10: 36
        +6
        Quote: Golovan Jack
        Well, for Tulip, the special mine was ... what is the difference?

        The fact that the tulip is not in the forefront fighting, as well as revenge. Unlike a tank.
        I see the use of such a tank only as a one-time operation on objects in which for some reason it is not possible to get an artillery shell.
        1. Golovan Jack
          Golovan Jack 5 October 2018 10: 45
          0
          Quote: Waltasar
          the tulip is not in the forefront fighting, as is revenge. Unlike the tank

          Nobody will send a tank with such a shell "to the first rows" either.

          Quote: Waltasar
          I see the use of such a tank ...

          ... already interesting ...

          Quote: Waltasar
          as one-time operations on objects in which for any reason not possible to get artillery shell

          Uh-huh ... and that is why this object must not be hit by a nuclear projectile. Sit down, two ...
    2. Serge Gorely
      Serge Gorely 5 October 2018 08: 05
      +8
      For Hollywood, that's it. You can also give the tank commander nuclear bullets. But in general, the correct thought was voiced - nuclear weapons in a tank, in the hands of a separate infantryman, are guaranteed to instigate a global nuclear war.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 5 October 2018 13: 45
        +4
        Quote: Serge Gorely
        But in general, the correct thought was voiced - nuclear weapons in a tank, in the hands of a separate infantryman, are guaranteed to instigate a global nuclear war.

        Oh, the youth has gone!
        It’s a matter of dida! Nuclear RPGs betrayed!
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett
        (No recoil, more precisely).
      2. engineer74
        engineer74 5 October 2018 16: 17
        +6
        Quote: Serge Gorely
        For Hollywood, that's it. You can also give the tank commander nuclear bullets. But in general, the correct thought was voiced - nuclear weapons in a tank, in the hands of a separate infantryman, are guaranteed to instigate a global nuclear war.

        Global nuclear war is likely to be arranged by graduates
        dolbyotytyly, beckoning themselves to politicians, than the freshly recruited reindeer herder from the mountain village. At least hang with his nuclear grenades.
      3. bayard
        bayard 5 October 2018 16: 53
        +5
        Donetsk.
        Who will put an individual infantryman in a tank?
        A special. the ammunition is therefore called special because there are SPECIALLY trained people for its use. And artillery fired (should shoot) such ammunition only officers. And there are different cases in war - a real war, for example, the assault of a fortified area, industrial zone, urban development on the enemy's territory ... Or the tanks went into a breakthrough, the artillery lagged behind and the NATO base Ramstein is in front of you - I don't mind anything special for this ... But for This should include Armata-152 tanks in the attacking formations ... I hope they will ...
    3. Smol79
      Smol79 5 October 2018 08: 40
      -1
      Units with nuclear ammunition are visible from deep space because of their size :) (service staff, support, etc. etc.) so that tanks will fire nuclear shells from security.
    4. KBaHT_BpeMeHu
      KBaHT_BpeMeHu 5 October 2018 13: 11
      +1
      I am not an expert, of course, but IMHO after a nuclear explosion, the danger is radioactive dust, it will settle naturally and the risk of exposure will be minimal. (Tours lead in Pripyat now)
      1. Archon
        Archon 5 October 2018 17: 45
        +1
        exposure, yes. after a certain number of years, heavy particles will go into the soil and irradiation will be minimal. but radioactive elements will accumulate in plants, fungi, animals, and for humans this threatens a large number of oncological diseases. Ukrainians collect mushrooms in Chernobyl and sell them on the market.
        1. KBaHT_BpeMeHu
          KBaHT_BpeMeHu 5 October 2018 19: 03
          0
          but radioactive elements will accumulate in plants, fungi, animals, and for humans this threatens a large number of oncological diseases
          So it’s so, but during the military apocalypse when nuclear shells were used, at the front line, during the battle, all thoughts would have lived for another moment. I meant that after using such charges, the territory +/- will be suitable for maneuvering by troops.
        2. Warrior Spirit
          Warrior Spirit 6 October 2018 22: 09
          -1
          Quote: Archon
          exposure, yes. after a certain number of years, heavy particles will go into the soil and irradiation will be minimal. but radioactive elements will accumulate in plants, fungi, animals, and for humans this threatens a large number of oncological diseases. Ukrainians collect mushrooms in Chernobyl and sell them on the market.
          - Okay, mine, but they don’t sell mine. DAILY dozens of trucks from Ukraine, loaded with mushrooms from Pripyat, call into the territory of Russia. Thousands, hundreds of thousands of Russians have already died from these mushrooms !!!
          1. Golovan Jack
            Golovan Jack 6 October 2018 22: 14
            0
            Quote: Warrior Spirit
            Thousands, hundreds of thousands of Russians have already died ...

            ... and what not millions at once?

            Quote: Warrior Spirit
            from these mushrooms !!!

            Good ones, I see you have mushrooms. Plyuet from them obviously nipadecki laughing

            Thinner is needed, finer ... and more thorough yes
    5. NG inform
      NG inform 5 October 2018 21: 48
      -2
      Will not be guaranteed. There will be nothing from hitting. Much worse if enemies capture.
  3. Larum
    Larum 5 October 2018 09: 25
    +2
    The king was a tank, give the king a shell. it still wasn’t like.
  4. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 5 October 2018 10: 51
    +6
    No guys, this is obviously too much! request
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 5 October 2018 16: 22
      +4
      Now there is so much electronics on the battlefield that the projectile with EMP asks for all the ammunition. And to do it on nuclear power, or on wood - let the experts decide ... hi
  5. Gerklim
    Gerklim 5 October 2018 10: 58
    0
    The theme with such shells is raised to wash many budget money. It will be invested a lot in the development, and then the Defense Ministry will say - we do not need such shells for a tank that is not in the army and may not be.
    Here it is. And billions are washed, medals are hung on the chest, for promising ones that have no analogues and it turns out that products are unnecessary to anyone.
  6. NEXUS
    NEXUS 5 October 2018 11: 16
    +2
    The United States is now seriously discussing the use of low-power nuclear charges in local conflicts ... therefore, we also need to somehow respond to this.
  7. garri-lin
    garri-lin 5 October 2018 11: 55
    +6
    A shell for a revenge or a coalition is acceptable. It's good!!! But for a tank this is absurd. With proper organization in battle, any target for which the tank shoots, can be fired from artillery or MLRS or a tactical missile. Why risk a carrier of nuclear weapons in the front ranks of the troops if all the same can be done from closed positions with greater security.
    This is not yet considering all sorts of criminal / espionage options with cunning ensigns, and hijacking a super tank with all sorts of brook bonds. And just do it, if I’m not mistaken, the order to use nuclear weapons, even the president alone cannot give.
    1. bayard
      bayard 5 October 2018 17: 20
      +7
      Donetsk.
      Do you think that someone will load such a shell into a combat unit in peacetime? For them, there are special repositories with a special mode. And the USSR air defense, for example, for all heavy and medium complexes (SAM), there were special warheads ... which could be used for ground targets, if baked.
      If it comes to such ammunition, most likely several crews will be allocated for their use (for example, in a regiment), which will undergo special training for special cases. And there are different cases. Us in the Soviet Army prepared for a real war - nuclear. And professionally, technically, and psychologically - it was the Army, ready to win and die (but winning!). And if the General Staff decides that such a tank (with a 152 mm cannon) is needed, it will be put into service. And there will be ammunition for it. And personally, I am ready to support such a decision. Of course, in compliance with a number of measures.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 6 October 2018 14: 01
        -2
        Quote: bayard
        several crews will be allocated ... who will undergo special training for special cases

        Like those four officer crews of the Taman division in the memorable 93rd))))))))))
        Only they had no nuclear shells.
    2. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 5 October 2018 19: 21
      0
      Quote: garri-lin
      A shell for a revenge or a coalition is acceptable. It's good!!! But for a tank this is absurd. With proper organization in battle, any target for which the tank shoots, can be fired from artillery or MLRS or a tactical missile. Why risk a carrier of nuclear weapons in the front ranks of the troops if all the same can be done from closed positions with greater security.
      This is not yet considering all sorts of criminal / espionage options with cunning ensigns, and hijacking a super tank with all sorts of brook bonds. And just do it, if I’m not mistaken, the order to use nuclear weapons, even the president alone cannot give.

      This is the ammunition for World of tanks. Beat the areas of the proposed artillery location, beat the Xth, especially the Maus laughing
  8. Waldemar
    Waldemar 5 October 2018 12: 08
    +2
    I can understand the nuclear projectile for self-propelled guns like Coalition SV or MstaS. Why is it for a tank? A nuclear explosion a couple of kilometers from you? Mmmm ... maybe a kamikaze with a nuclear pack is better if you go crazy?
    As for Rosatom - you somehow forgot about the cores with depleted uranium and all thoughts for some reason about yao. And uranium is for whose part.
    1. Gray brother
      Gray brother 5 October 2018 12: 27
      +1
      Quote: Valdemar
      A nuclear explosion a couple of kilometers from you?

      Why paired? From a 120 mm tank gun, a projectile can easily fly 11-12 kilometers, and from a 152 mm can fly even further.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 5 October 2018 14: 22
        +1
        Why not shoot this distance from a howitzer from a closed position? There are profile sights. In general, now does the tank have a sight for firing from closed positions? At the maximum far?
        1. Gray brother
          Gray brother 5 October 2018 18: 48
          0
          Quote: garri-lin
          . In general, now does the tank have a sight for firing from closed positions?

          There is a compass for this.
      2. Waldemar
        Waldemar 5 October 2018 21: 36
        +1
        The tank gun and sighting system are not designed to work as a howitzer. Even the vertical angles are not the same
    2. akunin
      akunin 5 October 2018 16: 44
      0
      Quote: Valdemar
      As for Rosatom - you somehow forgot about the cores with depleted uranium and all thoughts for some reason about yao. And uranium is for whose part.

      depleted uranium is also not very good, I read somewhere that American tankers more often than others have oncopathology and the main reason is depleted uranium in the armor and ammunition of the "Abrams"
    3. NG inform
      NG inform 5 October 2018 21: 50
      -1
      From a small nuclear explosion 2 km from you - you will not get anything from the word at all. Here you need to be afraid of opponents.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 5 October 2018 23: 31
        +1
        Quote: NG inform
        Here you need to be afraid of opponents

        What are they afraid of if there are nuclear shells? Let them fear.
  9. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 5 October 2018 17: 40
    +1
    It is a well-grounded decision.
    If you remember, the pindos in the 60s had such recoilless "Davey Crockett" with ultra-low-yield nuclear charges (tens of tons). There, the minimum safe for calculation (uncovered) firing distance was about 700 meters.
    The tank also does not have to be given kiloton shells, since even such a microcharge will be enough to destroy any object on the battlefield with one direct fire shot. In addition, this is an absolutely indispensable means of suppressing the enemy’s anti-tank defense during a breakthrough. With the appropriate modification of the LMS and helicopters, you can shoot at a great distance.
    1. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 5 October 2018 19: 18
      0
      Yes, you can’t replace anything with a nuclear bomb suppression. In war in built-up areas too laughing
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 5 October 2018 23: 18
        0
        Quote: Krasnodar
        In war in built-up areas too

        It is in the built-up. It would be possible to use special ammunition in Grozny - there would be no defeat of the Maykop brigade. Conventional artillery and aviation training is completely insufficient to suppress resistance in dense buildings.
    2. Alf
      Alf 5 October 2018 23: 11
      0
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      If you remember, the pindos in the 60s had such recoilless "Davey Crockett" with ultra-low-yield nuclear charges (tens of tons). There, the minimum safe for calculation (uncovered) firing distance was about 700 meters.

      In the 50s and 60s, all countries went crazy from atomic weapons, and it came to atomic cartridges. But common sense still won, everyone understood, we are not living on another planet, and nuclear weapons quietly and peacefully moved into the category of deterrence weapons and the missile industry.
    3. SOKOL777
      SOKOL777 13 October 2018 01: 35
      0
      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/DavyCrockettBomb.jpg/250px-DavyCrockettBomb.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Little_Feller_I_-_Mushroom_cloud.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Davy_Crockett_bomb.jpg
      Here is a link to Davey Crockett.
  10. Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 5 October 2018 19: 16
    0
    You can continue the series of articles by creating a promising nuclear grenade launcher and thermonuclear hand grenade. Significantly increase the firepower of the Airborne Division. If thrown from an airplane.
    1. Sergey-8848
      Sergey-8848 5 October 2018 19: 38
      0
      The dispute of the pioneers, whose tie is thicker.
      If the abbreviations ZOMP or OMPiZ are unknown to a comrade, then there is no point in talking with him - nothing.
    2. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 5 October 2018 23: 29
      0
      Quote: Krasnodar
      prospective nuclear grenade launcher

      The aforementioned "Davey Crockett" practically was.
      Here a small charge power is a huge plus. If it is permissible to find uncovered manpower 700 meters from the gap, then this is not much more than the distance when attacking behind the fire shaft. And they will clearly take longer to dig out and dig out at the leading edge than after the transfer of the fire shaft deep into the defense. Plus, all the electronics will be covered.
      1. Alf
        Alf 5 October 2018 23: 42
        +1
        Quote: Narak-zempo
        Here a small charge power is a huge plus.

        And then step on your own through this circle? And it is unlikely that this RPG will only release one shell, which means that the speck will be hoo. Yes, and it’s rightly noted that giving a simple anti-tanker a vigorous loaf in the hands of this ... I don’t even know how to evaluate it.
        1. Narak-zempo
          Narak-zempo 6 October 2018 14: 07
          0
          Quote: Alf
          give a simple anti-tanker a vigorous baton

          No, there is no sense in an anti-tank grenade launcher with a nuclear charge. Such a light recoilless gun is a powerful assault weapon:
          https://youtu.be/eiM-RzPHyGs
      2. Krasnodar
        Krasnodar 5 October 2018 23: 53
        0
        Quote: Narak-zempo
        Quote: Krasnodar
        prospective nuclear grenade launcher

        The aforementioned "Davey Crockett" practically was.
        Here a small charge power is a huge plus. If it is permissible to find uncovered manpower 700 meters from the gap, then this is not much more than the distance when attacking behind the fire shaft. And they will clearly take longer to dig out and dig out at the leading edge than after the transfer of the fire shaft deep into the defense. Plus, all the electronics will be covered.

        And after a shot from 700, 1000, 1500 meters, what will happen to the calculation itself? This is a very "dirty" shell. Shoot in a chemical protection suit, evacuate after a shot, take a shower and swallow tablets with iodine? Artillerymen and all neighboring units? )))
        1. Narak-zempo
          Narak-zempo 6 October 2018 07: 58
          +1
          If the application was effective and the defense was suppressed, then you will not have to stay in the infected area for a long time. Ideally, generally slip through the former line of defense without dismounting. Then deactivate the equipment - and forward to the operational space.
          As Homer Simpson said, radiation kills only those who fear it.
  11. Vladislav_2
    Vladislav_2 6 October 2018 03: 22
    0
    Such a projectile must be in every tank that will cross the border of Russia and NATO, and it is necessary to draw a sign of radiation hazard on each arm. To even fart towards our tanks were afraid.
  12. Ber
    Ber 6 October 2018 07: 54
    0
    It is easy to see that last year's news about the participation of “Rosatom” in the development of new tank ammunition is not at all connected with the desire of the military to obtain nuclear projectiles. On the contrary, the experience and technologies of the nuclear industry are proposed to be used in the creation of conventional weapons. According to known data, nuclear scientists are involved in the development of armor-piercing shells with uranium cores and high-explosive ammunition based on new explosives for this field.


    In NATO, depleted uranium shells are called silver bullets, I wonder what name they come up with for active nuclear shells))))
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 6 October 2018 13: 53
      0
      Quote: Ber
      I wonder what name they come up with for active nuclear shells

      Fireball, for example. What is bad?
  13. serg.shishkov2015
    serg.shishkov2015 6 October 2018 11: 00
    0
    may not be the topic, but I want to quote V.N. Morozov, chief designer of KB-2 RFNC-VNIIEF- * A nuclear weapon should not work anywhere and never, except for the target and only in combat use * - magazine * Atom * No. 70 2016
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 6 October 2018 13: 51
      +1
      So after all, it will not work just like that. The worst that can happen when a tank is defeated and detonation of a missile is spraying fissile material and infecting a limited area. However, when it comes to the use of tanks with nuclear shells, it will not give a damn.
      1. serg.shishkov2015
        serg.shishkov2015 6 October 2018 14: 35
        +1
        Yes you are right! if it comes to the use of nuclear weapons - it will not give a damn about everything! so that’s why they work in my city, so that ALL would know
        * And to those who dream of power,

        It would not be superfluous to take into account-
        There is a city in the vastness of Russia!
        And we are his glory and honor! *
        R, C, it’s not me who wrote-A, Priporov
      2. serg.shishkov2015
        serg.shishkov2015 7 October 2018 06: 32
        0
        I’ll add, my classmate and old friend has been designing these charges for 25 years and he will do EVERYTHING so that a foreign atomic mushroom doesn’t rise in our Motherland!
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 7 October 2018 23: 37
      0
      Read about "Pomegranate". There, just the whole system of low-altitude subsonic nuclear breakthrough was based on the fact that special warheads explode as soon as the missile is "offended"
  14. Old26
    Old26 6 October 2018 18: 14
    -1
    Quote: Narak-zempo
    It is a well-grounded decision.

    Crazy decision. It seems that the author of this idea does not think that the enemy will take similar measures.

    Quote: Narak-zempo
    The aforementioned "Davey Crockett" practically was.
    Here a small charge power is a huge plus. If it is permissible to find uncovered manpower 700 meters from the gap, then this is not much more than the distance when attacking behind the fire shaft. And they will clearly take longer to dig out and dig out at the leading edge than after the transfer of the fire shaft deep into the defense. Plus, all the electronics will be covered.

    In 50-60 sometimes they went crazy in the development of new means of destruction. There were ideas in general to have nuclear bullets (ESNIP were called "Californian" bullets. But common sense prevailed. Smart heads realized that giving the right to use nuclear weapons at the level of the battalion commander or company commander was stupidity that would lead me to a global war.
    And electronics will be covered for everyone. And those who shot, and those who were shot. And it will be something completely otherworldly. Battle of tanks with nuclear shells. "Armata" against "Abrasms" ("Leopards" / "Leclercs"), Enchanting picture

    Quote: Vladislav_2
    Such a projectile must be in every tank that will cross the border of Russia and NATO, and it is necessary to draw a sign of radiation hazard on each arm. To even fart towards our tanks were afraid.

    What about the same shells on the opposite side? Will it also need to be in every tank that is preparing to cross the Russian border?
    1. KCA
      KCA 7 October 2018 07: 58
      +1
      Yes, how much nonsense about nuclear bullets can be repeated? California costs $ 30 per gram, not weak bullets are obtained, at the price of a dozen tanks with airplanes to the heap
    2. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 7 October 2018 08: 53
      0
      Quote: Old26
      that the enemy will take similar measures

      The enemy’s goal, as clear as possible, is the elimination of Russia. Moreover, this opponent is obviously superior in resources. In such circumstances, it is important to demonstrate a willingness to take extreme measures at the slightest threat.
      Quote: Old26
      at the battalion or company level

      Well, no one will be let down in companies. The commanders of the regimental and divisional units are quite competent.
      Quote: Old26
      electronics will be covered and at all

      The power of EMP depends on the total power of the explosion, that is, it will be knowingly small. And it decreases in proportion to the square of the distance. It is quite simple to calculate the distance at which it will be quite simple to turn off the power to the devices at the time of the explosion.