Military Review

Features of domestic tanks with guns of caliber 152 mm

154
In the eighties, work began in our country to create promising tank guns of increased caliber, capable of providing a sharp increase in firepower. The concepts of guns of caliber 130, 140 and 152 mm of various types were worked out. At the same time, all real projects provided for the construction of 152-mm systems. In just a few years, both new guns and tanks were created for them. The latter had a number of characteristic features due to the characteristics of the weapons.



Experienced "Object 292" with a gun LP-83. Photo by Vitalykuzmin.net


LP-83 for “292 Object”


One of the first developments of the new class was the smooth-bore 152-mm gun LP-83, which was the result of the joint work of several domestic enterprises. At first, they planned to test it at the stand, and then it was proposed to carry out a test on an experimental tank. The latter was a deeply modernized version of the T-80BV and is known as the “292 Object”.

All the characteristic features of the 292 tank were concentrated in the combat compartment and were associated mainly with the increased dimensions of the guns and ammunition. First of all, the design of the tower has changed. An embrasure of a new design appeared in the frontal part, in which the gun mount was moved forward. The stern was supplemented with a large box-shaped niche. A serious refinement of the tower’s shoulder straps was also needed - in fact, the creation of a new design corresponding to increased loads.

For LP-83 and “Object 292” developed new anti-recoil devices of increased efficiency. With their help, the rollback value was kept at the level of the parameters of serial guns 2A46. At the same time, the impulse of the LP-83 shot was about one and a half times higher. For the “292” tank, a new loading mechanism was also developed for the separately-shell 152-mm rounds. As the project developed, it was planned to transfer the entire ammunition to mechanized laying.

In 1990-91 the experienced “292 Object” entered the firing range to test fire quality. The LP-83 gun showed all its capabilities and advantages over smaller caliber systems. At the same time, the modified T-80BV tank demonstrated its positive qualities. The design of the chassis and the new tower withstood the load and ensured proper operation weapons.

Features of domestic tanks with guns of caliber 152 mm
One of the options MBT "Object 477". Figure Btvt.info


The tests confirmed the fundamental possibility of modernizing the existing main tanks with the installation of a new tower with weapons of increased power. However, these ideas appeared at a bad time, and therefore did not reach full implementation.

2A73 gun for HCBM tanks


In the eighties, another tank gun of increased power was created, known under the index 2A73. The Kharkov Design Bureau of Engineering showed great interest in this product, as a result of which the 152-mm guns were present in several of his later projects. At the same time, none of them advanced beyond the tests.

The first version of the tank with the 152-mm cannon began to be worked out at the KhKBM in 1984. It was the “477 Object” or “Boxer”. Subsequently, the code "Hammer" appeared. The main features of such a machine were identified, which later did not undergo significant changes. At the same time, as the project develops, these or those components are constantly being developed.

The 477 project provided for the remote installation of tools under the reduced-size housing. The crew and styling were placed inside the hull, and above them on a rotating base there was a casing with a gun and means of loading. Such a layout of the fighting compartment was to provide maximum security for people and ammunition. In addition, it allowed to reduce the required size of the turret and reduce the weight of the armored car.


Further development of Boxer / Hammer is the “477A1 Object” or “Note”. Photo Defense-blog.com


Particularly challenging was the development of an automatic loader, capable of raising the components of the shots from the body to the gun. The AZ included two conveyors for storing and supplying shells and shells placed inside the hull. Capacity - Xnumx Shot. There was a separate feed conveyor for 32 shots. There was also a lift for feeding shots into the chamber.

The “477 Object” passed part of the tests, but then the work stopped due to the collapse of the USSR and characteristic problems. Subsequently, unsuccessful attempts were made to revive this project. The modified Boxer / Hammer variants were called the Barrier and the Note. These projects used similar, but modified design solutions. Over time, all such work stopped.

2A83 and the "195 Object"


In the nineties, the Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering developed its own version of the tank with the 152-mm cannon. MBT "Object 195" or T-95 was to carry a smoothbore gun 2A83 of increased power. It was also proposed to supplement the main weapon with an 30-mm automatic gun.

The 195 project was based on a number of layout solutions aimed at improving crew safety. All tankers had to be located inside the hull and control weapons using remote control systems. The uninhabited fighting compartment was carried out according to the scheme with the placement of weapons under the reduced-size housing.


Experienced "195 Object". Photo Btvt.info


Unfortunately, accurate data on the design of the tank as a whole and its individual units are still missing. However, it is understood that mechanized ammunition packs were located inside the hull. With the help of conveyors and elevators, the components of the shots were to be fed into a low-profile tower, to the gun. For all its complexity, such a fighting compartment provided high combat qualities, increased the safety of people, and also gave a certain potential for modernization.

However, like previous tanks with 152-mm guns, the "Object 195" did not advance beyond the tests. After a long period of uncertainty, it was abandoned in favor of a fundamentally new project. However, apparently, some developments on the "195" / T-95 still found application in the creation of a new unified armored platform.

The secret of "Almaty"


Since 2009, a new unified platform “Armata” has been developed, on the basis of which the promising MBT T-14 has already been created. From the very beginning, the possibility of equipping the T-14 with an enlarged caliber gun appeared on the level of speculation and rumor. Subsequently, there were reports according to which the study of such an option of a “combat artillery machine” was actually underway. In various assessments in this context, the 2A83 gun or a product based on it appears.

How exactly “Armata” with the 152-mm gun will look like is unknown. However, you can try to imagine such an armored vehicle using the available data on the existing MBT T-14.


Separate loading shot for the 2A83 gun. Photo Naukatehnika.com


It is known that the T-14 uses an uninhabited fighting compartment with a custom-designed tower. Under light protection hides a durable casing of the gun mount, on which the 2A82 gun is mounted. Thus, we are talking about a certain semblance of a layout with a remote arrangement of weapons. When installing the 152-mm gun 2A83 can be used in the same layout. It has some advantages, including simplifying the processing of equipment of the fighting compartment for a new gun.

However, accurate data on the "Armata" with a weapon of increased power are still not available. Moreover, even the status of the project remains unclear - unless, of course, it was really developed. Conclusions about BAM based on MBT T-14 can only be made after the appearance of sufficiently detailed data.

Similar and different


It is easy to see that when creating promising tanks with 152-mm guns of increased power, Soviet and Russian engineers worked out different concepts and design options. At the same time, one of the layout options did not receive much distribution, while the other found application in several projects.

The tower of traditional construction, rebuilt for a larger and more powerful cannon, was used only at the “292 Object”. All other experimental samples had remote weapons, protected by a smaller dome. In a similar way, a fighting compartment of a future modification of "Almaty" can be built.


MBT T-14. The characteristic contours of the tower indicate the layout of the internal volumes and hint at the possibility of replacing the guns. Wikimedia Commons Photos


The remote gun does not require a large and heavy turret, and also allows you to transfer crew seats completely inside the armored corps. However, this raises the need for a more sophisticated automatic loader and remote weapon control systems. In the case of an uninhabited fighting compartment, a new chassis is required, since the use of a finished machine can lead to excessive difficulties.

Thus, when it comes to creating a project of deep modernization, as in the case of the “292 Object”, the most profitable is the use of the rebuilt tower. In the case of a completely new tank, the most automated or uninhabited fighting compartment with out-of-arms weapons pays off.

With the available data, it is possible to imagine what paths the development of domestic tank building can take in the future. However, such forecasts will be true only in one case - if the customer shows serious interest in guns of increased power and starts the transition to a new caliber of tank guns.
Author:
154 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Obi-Wan Kenobi 30 August 2019 06: 46
    +10
    Maybe I'm certainly not right, due to the fact that I'm not an expert. But...
    I don't understand why it was necessary to create an "Armata", a tank much larger in size than the T-72, T-90 and T-80, with a 125mm gun already installed on the listed tanks?
    What is the benefit in this? Where is the advantage? Maybe in the invulnerability of "Armata"?
    So for such a cost, "Armata" can be installed KAZ of the latest generation, on all tanks in use in the Russian army.
    And the effect of this would be much greater.
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 30 August 2019 07: 08
      +8
      Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi
      Maybe I'm certainly not right, due to the fact that I'm not an expert. But...

      And I, although a specialist, agree with you in many ways.
      But those who advocate the transition to a larger caliber are not raising the question correctly.
      All calibers for their tasks require both heavy equipment and medium-sized vehicles, for it is simply ridiculous to equip troops with only 50-70 ton mastodons with limited maneuverability, especially in the sense of overcoming natural barriers and requiring significantly larger rear and technical support.
      The armata is the same, just a base, a platform, for various heavy vehicles and, indeed, with a 125-mm gun, does not greatly exceed the T-90 of the latest modifications.
      This does not mean that this caliber is not needed at all on the new platform. Here, the price-quality ratio will play a decisive role. If the 125-mm Armata is not great ahead of the T-90M in combat effectiveness, then it should not be pulled ahead too much in price.
      1. Yrec
        Yrec 30 August 2019 09: 00
        +3
        T-14 is an experimental vehicle. In its current form, it will not go into series. At least the seven-wheel chassis hints at the possibility of installing 152mm, but 152mm is redundant on the serial MBT (at least for now). In my opinion, for MBT, the Armata platform will be cut to 6 rollers, and 7 rollers will be left for the SPG. The most important quality of MBT is not firepower / mobility / protection (although this is also certainly important), but the possibility of mass production during a "special period". Conveyor T-72 has a normal full production cycle of about 9 months, slipway western tanks - several years. Yes, besides, their release has long been discontinued. Our new tank, in my opinion for the sofa, will be with a 125mm cannon, with a 6-wheeled chassis, with an armored capsule, most likely without a KAZ, with a production cycle of up to a year. The economy of war is relentless - it is necessary not only to quickly make up for losses (Western tanks - definitely not), but also to cover them with interest.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 30 August 2019 13: 21
          -5
          Quote: Yrec
          but on serial MBT 152mm is redundant (at least for now)

          You are mistaken, now thanks to 150 + mm caliber tanks
          1) they can be carriers of thermobaric active-rocket shells which, when fired, will create a minimal sound hit, which will give an advantage in real rate of fire by minimizing the dust cloud (see tank video from Syria). (this is also good for protecting the tank itself)
          2) they can be carriers of anti-aircraft missiles for the destruction of submarines \ UAVs especially of a helicopter type
          3) they will be able to fire anti-personnel cluster shells along a hinged trajectory, which will make trenching pointless. (though for this you will need separate scalable charging by the number of MVV)
          4) will be able to fire heavy active-reactive armor-piercing shells
          5) can be unified by ammunition with ground artillery
          6) thanks to point "3" it will be possible to increase the number of tanks by reducing mortar and small-caliber artillery subunits. (Although it is desirable to have a _MRSI_ firing mode for this, but this is not a strict requirement)
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 30 August 2019 14: 35
            +11
            what utter nonsense))

            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            can be carriers of thermobaric active-rocket shells which, when fired, will create a minimal sound impact, which will give an advantage in real rate of fire by minimizing the dust cloud

            Do you understand what you wrote? What is a dust cloud? Powder gases escaping from the tank barrel, which, given the more powerful charge for the large-caliber system, will be more.


            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            can be carriers of air defense missiles

            damn, and the carrier of ICBMs, to go into outer space and dive into the Mariana Trench tank should be able too? What for you hang up tasks unusual for him on the tank?

            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            will be able to fire anti-personnel cluster shells along a hinged path, which will make trenching pointless

            narrowness))) The tank’s gun is designed for flat shooting, it does not have large vertical pointing angles to provide mounted shooting. And why should he? There are shells with remote detonation, which also hit manpower in the same trenches.

            I don’t even comment on the rest. Excuse me for your interest. What smoke are you?
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 30 August 2019 16: 17
              -2
              Quote: Gregory_45
              Do you understand what you wrote? What is a dust cloud?

              In a desert-steppe type fire-fighting complex, when fired, a shock wave raises a dust cloud that impedes firing; in APC, this shock wave is orders of magnitude smaller, which makes it possible to shoot more often.
              Quote: Gregory_45
              What for you hang up tasks unusual for him on the tank?

              Because in the age of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that are carriers of PTS, existing anti-aircraft guns are unable to protect the tank because they are unable to go with them in general order.
              Quote: Gregory_45
              The tank’s gun is designed for flat shooting; it does not have large vertical pointing angles to ensure mounted shooting. And why should he?

              Then, in order not to be exposed to the infantry return fire, then to maximize the density of fire for a specific target, then so that the rear orders of the tanks can support the attack and conduct fire to suppress and barrage fire.
              Quote: Gregory_45
              There are shells with remote detonation, which also hit manpower in the same trenches.

              They are either too expensive or unable to hit the enemy due to the characteristics of the expansion of the fragmentation field.
              Quote: Gregory_45
              Excuse me for your interest. What smoke are you?

              Actually, I’m not a smoker, which I advise you, And if you consider yourself such an incredibly guru of tank themes, then try to come up with your own ways to restore the combat effectiveness of modern tanks in a modern war. For today it’s very bad with this ...
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 30 August 2019 16: 42
                +5
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                In a desert-steppe type fire-fighting complex, when fired, a shock wave raises a dust cloud that impedes firing; in APC, this shock wave is orders of magnitude smaller, which makes it possible to shoot more often.

                alas, it will not help. Do you suggest throwing the projectile at low speed, and disperse it on the trajectory? Three problems:
                1. how long will the projectile fly to the target
                2 where will he get, and will he get at all? (gets somewhere, where?) ARS already have lower accuracy, so this one is also slowly flying. But at a distance of 1-2 km to high speeds, the projectile cannot be dispersed, the distance is small.
                3. What about BOPS?

                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                Because in the age of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that are carriers of PTS, existing anti-aircraft guns are unable to protect the tank because they are unable to go with them in general order.

                the crew of the tank is already fully occupied, do you suggest that it be distracted by air control? Or introduce an anti-aircraft gunner to the crew? Do not make a tank do not understand what. You do not complain that the helicopter can not withstand the hit of a heavy anti-aircraft missile? Let's hang on him battleship armor? Each technique has its own tasks and capabilities, no need to make Frankenstein out of it. It is better to immediately bind the Death Star and hang it in orbit

                The main threat to the tank that aircraft carries is ATGM. Many things have been invented to repulse their attacks - from setting curtains to KAZ and KZVP. The use of electronic warfare

                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                Then, in order not to be exposed to the infantry return fire, then to maximize the density of fire for a specific target, then so that the rear orders of the tanks can support the attack and conduct fire to suppress and barrage fire.

                for this there are self-propelled guns that can work from closed positions, for tens of kilometers. For this there is army aviation. Or do your tanks go in isolation from other branches of the army, tanks in a vacuum?

                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                ways to restore the combat effectiveness of modern tanks in a modern war.

                and the tanks didn’t lose her. The tank is still one of the most effective means on the battlefield.
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 30 August 2019 17: 52
                  -1
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  What to do with BOPS?

                  Is something bothering him?
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  2 where will he get, and will he get at all? (gets somewhere, where?) ARS have lower accuracy anyway

                  Do not confuse warm with soft, portable and / or easel APCs have poor accuracy and short range.
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  the crew of the tank is already fully occupied, do you suggest that it be distracted by air control?

                  So the crew is now forced to do this, if before there were only PLA helicopters, today there are UAVs, google the video of the destruction of tanks by quadrocopters. But most importantly, you misunderstood the essence, the tank will launch an air defense system and carry it under armor protection, and space control based on radar adjustment of fire and / or KAZ radar, as well as sector-based separation of hazardous areas between armored vehicles.
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  for this there are self-propelled guns that can work from closed positions, for tens of kilometers

                  Self-propelled guns perform areal damage, and not point / linear, here we are talking about ranges from 500m to 10km. For example, the destruction of "dangerous bushes where the location of the enemy ATGM is possible." As for the "clustering BP", it is used to compensate for the deviation of the projectile trajectory. If we take into account _MRSI_, fire adjustment radar and packet data transmission systems, then the enemy firing position can be hit with one or two shots.
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  and the tanks didn’t lose her. The tank is still one of the most effective means on the battlefield.

                  Exactly the same thing over the past decades, the tanks did not give a military advantage in any of the wars. They either skated to no avail, or shot to no avail. In general, take an interest in examples of the real use of tanks over the past decades and you will have enormous doubts about this.
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 30 August 2019 22: 34
                    -1
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    What to do with BOPS?

                    Is something bothering him?

                    what is BOPS. do you know how it works? This is a thin rod of large elongation. How to create a normal APC in a caliber of 15-20 mm? Despite the fact that BOPS breaks precisely due to kinetic energy. See the question above.

                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    Do not confuse warm with soft, portable and / or easel APCs have poor accuracy and short range

                    the range of all APCs is greater than that of conventional shells, but the accuracy is lower for all. And here you offer a low-speed projectile. Accuracy will drop even more. Even a high-speed BOPS, fired from a smoothbore gun, at a distance of 2 km does not provide 100% hit in a tank type target. ARS is akin to NURS, they fly far, but to hit the target, as a rule, they require a flight correction.

                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    But most importantly, you misunderstood the essence

                    Yes, I realized that the idea is crazy

                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    the tank will launch an air defense system and carry it under protection of armor, and space control based on radar adjustment of fire and / or KAZ radar

                    KAZ, KZVP radars have a very limited range - about 50-150 meters. These radars are very accurate, but low power (for many reasons). Are you a UAV or a helicopter about to detach and bombard missiles at 150 meters? not funny?

                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    Self-propelled guns perform areal lesion, not targeted

                    it all depends on the SLA and shells. Modern self-propelled guns for external target designation are able to shoot very accurately. Army aviation, when interacting with the ground forces, is capable of ironing ironing the cutting edge in general.

                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    Exactly that, over the past decades, tanks have not given a military advantage in any of the wars.

                    truth? The infantry completes the war, and the tanks ensure its victory. you are either not familiar with the story, or you interpret it very freely.

                    Summing up, we can conclude that you are trying to think, invent something new, but it turns out to invent only a square wheel (no offense), because you lack knowledge and understanding how everything works and works
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 31 August 2019 11: 58
                      -2
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      Summing up, we can conclude that you are trying to think, invent something new, but it turns out to invent only a square wheel (no offense), because you lack knowledge and understanding how everything works and works

                      PMSM is you trying to make yourself smarter than others, but so far nothing comes of it, and all because you are watching but not seeing, hearing but not listening.
                      For example, you still haven’t answered what prevents you from launching BOPS from 150 + mm guns? I don’t understand perfectly what exactly you were wrong (where you looked and what you didn’t see), Well, so be it I give a hint, the third letter. This was firstly, and secondly, as it were, I did not refuse BOPS, and the APC offered for anti-personnel and anti-fortification purposes, and not anti-tank ones (PMSM is a hybrid of BOPS and ARS, possible but not practical).
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      the range of all APCs is greater than that of conventional shells, but the accuracy is lower for all.

                      And the tank does not need to shoot far, at least it is the ARS, they are needed for short range when the enemy can use the raised dust to their advantage.
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      KAZ, KZVP radars have a very limited range - about 50-150 meters.

                      Again, watch but don’t see, hear but don’t listen, I won’t paint. Look for the YouTube video on how Arabs destroy BBM with drones and THINK what you need to detect such drones.
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      army aviation

                      insanely long and expensive.
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      it all depends on the SLA and shells. Modern self-propelled guns for external target designation are able to shoot very accurately.

                      Only with expensive adjustable shells, which, due to their cost, deprives the advanced units of the possibility of preventive cleaning of suspicious firing lines. The problem is the distance between the target and the SPG. and / or the impossibility of introducing self-propelled guns into tank orders (weak armor, high silhouette, low fire density (no _MRSI_))
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      truth? The infantry completes the war, and the tanks ensure its victory. you are either not familiar with the story, or you interpret it very freely.

                      Well, okay, suppose your truth in the first instance, and ask for a list of examples of where, how and how the tanks gave an advantage in battle to the side that applied them. Then we subtract from this list those points where the enemy did not have a TCP, those cases where the enemy was not destroyed (where he was allowed to leave so as not to lose tanks) and those cases where the TBTR could replace the tank. So we are waiting for the resulting list.
                      1. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 31 August 2019 12: 25
                        0
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        What prevents to launch BOPS from 150 + mm guns?

                        nothing bothers. But you yourself have refused it. For, according to your words, the dust raised by the outflowing powder gases from the gun’s barrel will interfere with the adjustment of the sight and significantly reduce the rate of fire.
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        ARS proposed for anti-personnel and anti-fortification purposes, rather than anti-tank

                        it is not necessary to shoot at fortifications with a high rate of fire. It is needed just for shooting at a tank type target. But a shot by high-speed BOPS will raise clouds of dust? how to be Ask yourself questions, not write weird comments.

                        Now the correct answer. The rate of fire depends on the loading cycle time and the time it takes for the gunner to aim or adjust the sight. This is at least 6-8 seconds. And even more. During this time, the raised dust will settle to the level that it will be possible to observe the target. In addition, the BTVT (if it is not from the Stone Age) has thermal imagers that allow you to observe the target even in a sandstorm. Why reinvent the wheel on square wheels?

                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        And the tank does not need to shoot far, at least it is the ARS, they are needed for short range

                        once again: at a short distance, the APC will not accelerate to normal speed. In essence, this is NURS

                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        Modern self-propelled guns for external target designation are able to shoot very accurately.

                        Only expensive adjustable shells

                        ARS, to get where you need to, will also need to be made adjustable. By the way, all ARS used by artillery are correctable. Otherwise, it’s shooting at squares.

                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        army aviation

                        insanely long and expensive.

                        insanely expensive - this is to lose tanks and crews, sending them into battle without the support of other combat arms.

                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        Well, okay, suppose your truth in the first instance, and ask for a list of examples of where, how and how the tanks gave an advantage in battle to the side that applied them.

                        there are a lot of such examples. If they were familiar with the story, they would not ask such questions. Remember the first use of tanks, blitzkrieg, the first year of the Second World War, the Ardennes operation, etc. In Iraq, the Americans would not have reached Baghdad without tanks. Without tanks, they would not have taken Berlin to WWII.

                        You can own the air or sea as much as you like, but without the advance of the infantry, the war will remain positional. Only the infantry conquers cities. And she is supported by "armor". In offensive operations, a tank with modern protection is a powerful, indispensable tool for suppressing firing points and dispersing the enemy. A very useful thing is a tank in defense.
                      2. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 31 August 2019 12: 25
                        0
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        how Arabs destroy BBM with drones

                        drones should not be handled by tankers.
                    2. Saxahorse
                      Saxahorse 31 August 2019 18: 28
                      -2
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      Even a high-speed BOPS, fired from a smoothbore gun, at a distance of 2 km does not provide 100% hit in a tank type target.

                      Sorry, but this is some kind of nonsense. Just 2 km away, BOPS ensures accuracy of 40 cm. It seems that both debaters do not own the topic at all ..
                      1. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 31 August 2019 22: 05
                        +1
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Just at 2 km, BOPS provides a 40 cm accuracy

                        for a 125-mm tank gun, the maximum deviation in range from the aiming point at a range of 2000 m is ± 165 m. In azimuth, more than one and a half meters. Which in no way allows us to say that 100% of the shells will hit the target.
                      2. Bogatyrev
                        Bogatyrev 31 August 2019 22: 08
                        +1
                        In principle, the idea is correct. The experience of modern wars (Syria, Donbass) shows that the most popular role of a tank is a mobile weapon to support infantry. So, the idea of ​​increasing the power and range of ammunition, the introduction of all kinds of thermobaric, cluster munitions to combat infantry is quite relevant.
                        Anti-aircraft missiles to combat air defense and other aircraft will also not hurt. Now they are launched by everyone who does not get caught - even submarines. The concept of network-centric warfare requires an increase in possible launch points.

                        Anti-tank capabilities - in second place.
                      3. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 2 September 2019 23: 30
                        -2
                        Quote: Bogatyrev
                        The experience of modern wars (Syria, Donbass) shows that the most popular role of a tank is a mobile weapon for supporting infantry

                        This is the application I have described, I personally call this tank concept "_MOS _" (fire support vehicle), that is, if you look at the chronology of the development of tanks, it turns out 1) tank-ship 2) the concept of three tanks (L \ S \ T) 3) MBT 4) _MOS_.
            2. Alexander Kosilov
              Alexander Kosilov 2 September 2019 10: 37
              0
              I read the entire tape of this discussion) Gregory, I envy your nerves and good breeding) I couldn’t hold it that way) I fully support your views, and I’m absolutely shocked by the views of opponents: the peak of evil stupidity.
          2. whack
            whack 30 August 2019 19: 21
            0
            and a special charge marked with a yellow line can be used
          3. My doctor
            My doctor 1 September 2019 17: 31
            +1
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            2) they can be carriers of anti-aircraft missiles for the destruction of submarines \ UAVs especially of a helicopter type

            WHAT? fool
            For vertical aiming like an anti-aircraft gun, the tower on the tank for a 152mm gun should be more than three meters high.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 2 September 2019 23: 24
              -2
              Quote: MyVrach
              For vertical aiming like an anti-aircraft gun, the tower on the tank for a 152mm gun should be more than three meters high.

              As I understand it, you are talking about Msta-s and her hut, only what I wrote refers to UNABILABLE TOWER which uses additional internal struts and increased rollback. As for the receiver, they do not create a large load on the carrier during the launch process.
              1. My doctor
                My doctor 3 September 2019 21: 08
                +1
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                As I understand it, you are talking about Msta-s and her hut,

                The MSTA has a vertical guidance angle of up to 70 degrees for an anti-aircraft gun up to 82 degrees. So the cabin of the self-propelled guns will seem like an inspection hatch compared to the tower of your anti-aircraft tank
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 3 September 2019 23: 42
                  -2
                  I don’t understand why are you even attached to the height and angle of the tip? In the version I have voiced regarding self-propelled guns: firstly, the uninhabited tower is reinforced, the gun is recessed, and the turret size is reduced, secondly the barrel is shorter, thirdly, the firing range is shorter, and in the fourth in the NET tower there is a bottom warhead (like AZ t72) because there is nothing stopping the implement from rolling back almost to the BBM floor. Well, and most importantly, you look not at 2C19 Msta-s, but at 2C3 Akatsiya, there the tower is not much larger than the tank and the aiming angles are limited by the weak strength of the inhabited tower.
        2. PROXOR
          PROXOR 30 August 2019 16: 17
          +2
          Quote: Yrec
          but on serial MBT 152mm is redundant (at least for now)

          Definitely disagree with you. Even now, the upgraded 2A82 gun will experience certain problems when firing bridges such as Abrams and Leopard in the forehead. Even the latest ZBM44M Lead 2 shells penetrate 700mm gamogen armor at a distance of 2 km. Closer to the tank and no one will let. Now look at the forehead of the tower of Abrams. The latest version of the abrashka that is currently arriving with the striped M1A2 SEP V3 has approximately 850-900mm of armor. This is considering its layering and angle.
          The 152mm cannon will have a new BOPS and a larger powder charge. High kinematics + high speed of the projectile at the exit from the bore. It will allow you to pass the line of 1000mm. Also, this weapon will have better flatness of the "scrap" flight.
          But that is not all. Under the 152mm gun, you can adapt the ATGM 9M123 series, which has just a caliber of 152mm. And 9M123 is the ATGM of Chrysanthemums. And there is a supersonic rocket. And there are radio-guided missiles, and missiles with a tandem warhead. And a remote launch of 5 km.
          In general, the adoption of the 152mm guns on the Armat platform with its mass crosses out the entire NATO tank fleet.
          1. lev1759
            lev1759 31 August 2019 21: 59
            +1
            Quote: PROXOR
            Quote: Yrec
            but on serial MBT 152mm is redundant (at least for now)

            Definitely disagree with you. Even now, the upgraded 2A82 gun will experience certain problems when firing bridges such as Abrams and Leopard in the forehead. Even the latest ZBM44M Lead 2 shells penetrate 700mm gamogen armor at a distance of 2 km. Closer to the tank and no one will let. Now look at the forehead of the tower of Abrams. The latest version of the abrashka that is currently arriving with the striped M1A2 SEP V3 has approximately 850-900mm of armor. This is considering its layering and angle.
            The 152mm cannon will have a new BOPS and a larger powder charge. High kinematics + high speed of the projectile at the exit from the bore. It will allow you to pass the line of 1000mm. Also, this weapon will have better flatness of the "scrap" flight.
            But that is not all. Under the 152mm gun, you can adapt the ATGM 9M123 series, which has just a caliber of 152mm. And 9M123 is the ATGM of Chrysanthemums. And there is a supersonic rocket. And there are radio-guided missiles, and missiles with a tandem warhead. And a remote launch of 5 km.
            In general, the adoption of the 152mm guns on the Armat platform with its mass crosses out the entire NATO tank fleet.

            Well, she may not cross out, but will say her weighty word
            1. PROXOR
              PROXOR 2 September 2019 10: 42
              +1
              Cross out. Not one NATO tank will be able to withstand a tank with a 152mm gun at its distance.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 2 September 2019 23: 34
                +1
                Quote: PROXOR
                Cross out. Not one NATO tank will be able to withstand a tank with a 152mm gun at its distance.

                Only now, NATO tanks stupidly will not fight with armatures leaving them PLA / UAV with ATGM and DRG with wearable PTS.
                1. PROXOR
                  PROXOR 3 September 2019 13: 28
                  0
                  Here I definitely agree with you. Nonetheless. The presence in the combat zone of armored units with vehicles with such weapons will force the enemy to either retreat or divert large units to counter these vehicles.
                  1. ProkletyiPirat
                    ProkletyiPirat 3 September 2019 14: 23
                    -1
                    Well, I agree with you that more TBBMs (heavy armored combat vehicles) are needed, and even agree with the caliber of 150 + mm for some TBBMs, but definitely it should not be [tank OBT] like the T-95 (Object 195) or his analogue, in my opinion it should be [tank._MOS_] that is TBBM with _MGO_ (multifunctional hybrid gun <=> cannon, howitzer, mortar, launcher).
                    1. philosopher
                      philosopher 6 September 2019 10: 05
                      0
                      And here lies the advantage of the "Armata" PLATFORM. In fact, differently equipped units of one platform will appear on the battlefield. In a specific case, this is the T-14 tank in a modification with 125 and 152 mm cannons, which will operate in a single battle formation (including tanks of the previous generation). The only difference will be in the priority of choosing goals.
                      1. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 7 September 2019 15: 00
                        -2
                        No, this will definitely not happen, or rather it can be in the case of military operations in the process of transition from 125 to 152, when the former are not yet utilized, and the latter are not enough. But nobody will specifically create such a situation.
        3. Vol4ara
          Vol4ara 31 August 2019 13: 15
          0
          Quote: Yrec
          The economy of war is inexorable - it is necessary not only to quickly make up for losses (Western tanks - definitely not), but also to cover them with interest.

          And how to do it if tank plants are destroyed, their location is known, missiles fly far
        4. storm
          storm 1 September 2019 12: 03
          0
          The most important quality of MBT is not firepower / mobility / security (although this is also certainly important), but the possibility of mass production in a "special period"


          For the "special period" there are almost 15 thousand T-72 and T-80 ...
        5. db1967
          db1967 2 September 2019 06: 53
          +2
          Purely IMHO - you need 2 tanks.
          1. Peacetime tank. Not cheap in production but with a minimum. annual costs and long life cycle. Maximum - on anti-barmaleny operation.
          2. Tank for a GREAT WAR / pah 3r /
      2. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 30 August 2019 21: 33
        -2
        Quote: Alekseev
        But those who advocate the transition to a larger caliber are not raising the question correctly.

        With regard to tanks, the question is more than correct. The medium caliber of tanks has already outlived itself. Even today, the main weapon of the tank was a rocket, albeit launched through the barrel. But today the heavy infantry and good infantry fighting vehicles armed with almost the same missiles can do the same.

        The main task of the tank is to hack the enemy's defenses. Today, this must be done with weapons of caliber 6 "or more, otherwise the tank, as the main striking force, loses its meaning on the battlefield.
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 30 August 2019 22: 41
          +2
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Even today, the main weapon of the tank was a rocket

          What are you saying? Give statistics, how many missiles were shot, and how many shells, how many targets were hit by TUR, how many - by shells?

          Quote: Saxahorse
          Medium caliber tanks have outlived themselves

          is it 120-125 mm then the average caliber?

          Quote: Saxahorse
          The main task of the tank is to hack the enemy's defenses. Today, this should be done with weapons of 6 "caliber and larger.

          and what, 125-mm shells are no longer able to break through the defense in most cases? There are no self-propelled guns in the sun? no aviation? The task of the tank is to go on a direct fire and destroy something that is subject to its guns. Quickly and accurately, with one or two shells. The tank will not cope - artillery will hide.

          You say, to crack the defense of 120-125 mm shells? By the way, depending on what kind of defense. Sometimes bunkers and fortifications could not bring down multiple hits of 152-mm and 203-mm shells (a reference to the Finnish and World War II). Maybe give the tank a 460 mm gun? Well, for a guarantee?
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 31 August 2019 18: 24
            -2
            Quote: Gregory_45
            Give statistics, how many missiles were shot, and how many shells, how many targets were hit by TUR, how many - by shells?

            Yes Yes Yes! What are you saying that !? laughing

            What statistics do you still need? Well ka, well ka tell us! How many tanks in Syria or Iraq were destroyed by shells? Do you even manage to find such ?? Wake up already! WWII was 70 years ago! The ATGM has long dominated the battlefield.

            Quote: Gregory_45
            The task of the tank is to go on a direct fire and destroy something that is subject to its guns. Quickly and accurately, with one or two shells.

            Exactly. And if you suddenly forget - the power of the projectile grows in a cube from its caliber. If 125 mm shells make large breaks in buildings and structures, then a 152 mm shell will demolish all these structures to the base. Align the landscape of the planet, so to speak.
            1. Grigory_45
              Grigory_45 1 September 2019 09: 12
              0
              Quote: Saxahorse
              What statistics do you still need?

              it is very clearly written which:
              Quote: Saxahorse
              Today, the main weapon of the tank was a rocket, even if launched through the trunk

              Quote: Gregory_45
              Give statistics, how many missiles were shot, and how many shells, how many targets were hit by TUR, how many - by shells?

              Explanation: TUR is a tank guided missile, the one that launches through the barrel. So how many goals Tanks destroyed by missiles, and how many - by shells?
              I do not have such statistics, but I can confidently say that tanks used and are using shells.

              Quote: Saxahorse
              projectile power grows in a cube from its caliber

              then, and really need
              Quote: Gregory_45
              give the 460 mm cannon to the tank

              True, one shell will be attached to it, and that will already be sent to the breech, but this is not important. But any rear will understand how to do nefig, and then with a clear conscience will go to replenish the BC.

              We still have self-propelled artillery (including rocket artillery), as well as aviation.

              You're trying to make him some kind of self-propelled gun. Above suggested to give also the properties of air defense systems. It remains only to fasten the launcher for the ICBM onto it, and there will be an ideal death machine
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 3 September 2019 21: 27
                -1
                Quote: Gregory_45
                So how many targets did tanks destroy with missiles, and how many with shells?

                Do you really don’t understand this or are you pretending to be a blonde? What goals did tanks destroy with little missiles? Fortifications? Well, it’s clear to the hedgehog that the fortifications need to be fired with shells and not TOUR. Because there are many such goals, whole hectares need to be plowed. And again, it is clear that the larger the caliber, the more effective this work on plowing the landscape. 152 mm is the fastest firing tank available today.

                But most of the tanks themselves were destroyed precisely by missiles. And not tank ones but infantry or aviation. And in a battle against tanks, the tank itself will use the missile in the first place. But as you know:

                "Tanks do not fight with tanks!" (from)

                A tank duel is a huge rarity in our time, and it is obvious that on the battlefield today we need not "uranium scrap" but, first of all, a powerful carrier of large land mines.
                1. Grigory_45
                  Grigory_45 4 September 2019 16: 08
                  0
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  pretend to be a blonde?

                  only you are here.
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  And again, it is clear that the larger the caliber, the more effective this work on plowing the landscape.

                  you really don’t understand what they’re talking about, and continue to carry your own?
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  What goals did tanks destroy with little missiles?

                  yes all sorts. Because the tanks are mainly used, and use and will use shells.
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  But most of the tanks themselves destroyed exactly rockets. And not tank

                  finally! Q.E.D
                  1. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 4 September 2019 23: 07
                    -1
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    finally! Q.E.D

                    Well, you give .. Actually, the whole article here discusses the advantage of large 152 mm shells over the old 125 mm caliber, and you suddenly just realized that we are only talking about shells? laughing
                    1. Grigory_45
                      Grigory_45 5 September 2019 21: 52
                      -1
                      Quote: Saxahorse
                      and you suddenly just now realized that we are only talking about shells?

                      you are really blonde)) we talked about TOUR
                      1. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 5 September 2019 23: 36
                        -2
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        you are really blonde)) we talked about TOUR

                        The name of the article that you are commenting on, look .. You yourself are trying to talk about some TUR. laughing
                      2. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 6 September 2019 22: 20
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Comment article title

                        I comment on your comments)
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Are you talking to yourself about some TOUR trying to talk

                        truth? Do you have a memory like that of a girl?
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        today, the main weapon of the tank was a rocket, albeit launched through the barrel.


                        Who is the blonde, and very blonde, the question is closed))
    2. dzvero
      dzvero 30 August 2019 07: 16
      +8
      I'm not a specialist either, but in my opinion the T-72, 80 and 90 have reached the threshold of opportunities for modernization purely because of the size. After all, they originate from the T-64, and it appeared as part of the "concept" of a heavy tank in medium dimensions. What was good then now hinders further modernization.
      And the fact that the gun is 125 mm, so it is not quite the same as before. Apparently, in the course of adaptation to the new tower, they also found ways to increase power. It is very likely that this solution would not fit the inhabited tower. Plus, information appears on 140 and 152 mm guns.
      And the last thing - KAZ is not a panacea. The competition between armor and the shell was won by the shell, both at sea, in the air, and on land. And there will not be an innumerable number of "Armat" - no one in the world contains large tank formations of the latest generation.
      1. mark1
        mark1 30 August 2019 07: 34
        +2
        Quote: dzvero
        in my opinion T-72, 80 and 90 reached the threshold of opportunities for modernization purely because of the dimensions

        the further direction of their modernization may be full or partial robotization, ideally leaving one universal RM (just in case, or for use as a command machine)
        1. dzvero
          dzvero 30 August 2019 07: 48
          0
          Yes, but Armata is not so much a tank as a platform. T-shkas can be robotic, but turned into TBMP ... it is easier to design from scratch (Jews used to go along this path, turning captured T-55s into BMPs).
          On the other hand, observations of the development of technology suggest that Armata may turn out to be a swan song of classical tank building (as the Dreadnought at one time showed what a battleship should be like, and a quarter of a century later other types began to replace them).
          1. mark1
            mark1 30 August 2019 07: 55
            0
            Whether "Armata" is needed or not, let specially trained people decide (in my opinion, it is painfully healthy), but having a huge fleet of T-72 / T-80s, it is a sin not to take advantage of their unique potential for robotization.
            1. anzar
              anzar 30 August 2019 08: 34
              0
              It’s a sin not to take advantage of their unique robotic potential.

              + + +
            2. Grigory_45
              Grigory_45 30 August 2019 09: 38
              +1
              Quote: mark1
              T-72 / T-80 is a sin not to take advantage of their unique robotic potential.

              the fact of the matter is that the T-72/90 have no robotization potential.
              1. mark1
                mark1 30 August 2019 14: 23
                0
                They have, like almost any other equipment, but the installed automatic loader simplifies this task somewhat
                1. Grigory_45
                  Grigory_45 30 August 2019 14: 27
                  0
                  Quote: mark1
                  They have, like almost any other equipment

                  the T-72/90 family almost completely chose it. Further bells and whistles of tanks will not lead to the desired effect, and the costs will require considerable.

                  Quote: mark1
                  The installed automatic loader simplifies this task somewhat

                  Yes, what does AZ have to do with it? To robotize a tank, it must initially be saturated with electronics (preferably digital) and servos (at least), which is not observed on the T-75/90.

                  Do you imagine that it is worth making a tank at least remotely piloted?
                  1. mark1
                    mark1 30 August 2019 14: 50
                    -2
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    Further bells and whistles of tanks will not lead to the desired effect, and the costs will require considerable.

                    And one effect is required - the possibility of massive use of unmanned combat vehicles. They do not need to be compared in terms of combat properties with the "Armata" (this is stupid and no one strives for this).
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    In order to robotize a tank, it must first be saturated with electronics (preferably digital) and servos (at least),

                    This is your vision (in my opinion is not true). There would be something and there would be something, but you can always saturate whether this is a problem (see how ancient tanks are saturated with different cartoons and, notice, they are successfully selling). The checkpoints in the USSR were experimentally robotic in the 50s and 60s of the last century, and now this is probably not the main gag.
                    1. Grigory_45
                      Grigory_45 30 August 2019 14: 56
                      -1
                      Quote: mark1
                      This is your vision (in my opinion is not true).

                      Yes, this is my statement. True. If you were a specialist, you would say the same thing.

                      Quote: mark1
                      There would be something and there would be something, but you can always saturate, is this a problem

                      problem. This is to change or seriously modify almost the entire filling of the tank.

                      Quote: mark1
                      different cartoons

                      different cartoons are used by the crew, which sits in the tank, and uses its arms and legs. He looks with his eyes, pulls levers, presses buttons. Do you feel the difference between a person in a tank and an operator per kilometer? Or do not understand at all? Instead of a person there should be sensors and actuators. Because the remote operator cannot pull the lever, and press the button too.

                      A drone from the T-72 can be made, but only the hull will remain from the native tank. Well, where does it smell
                      Quote: mark1
                      unique robotic potential
                      ??
                      1. mark1
                        mark1 30 August 2019 15: 07
                        -2
                        Of course, I don’t know how skilled you are (and you’ll show the regalia), but I understand the difference between the driver in the tank and the operator per kilometer, but you stubbornly do not want to understand that mechanisms (servos) that replace jerking with arms and legs and technical vision already exists and is not a higher order problem and an irresistible financial hole. And what is the coolest - it is already embodied in metal.
                      2. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 30 August 2019 15: 35
                        +2
                        Quote: mark1
                        and you show regalia

                        Regalia can be presented, but I think it is inappropriate for one reason. Regalia do not always give the correct idea of ​​the interlocutor, do not always correspond. Therefore, I look at what and how a person writes, and not what his "iconostasis" and titles are.

                        Quote: mark1
                        but the difference between the driver in the tank and the operator per kilometer I understand

                        I think not to the end. You see, in order to replace a person, everything that he operates with must be remotely controlled. On each rod put a servo drive, replace the manual valve with an electrically operated one, etc. Well, the electric buttons integrate quite simply - I hooked them to the controller, wrote a program, and that’s all ... Technical vision is also not as simple as it seems. And this is all in the aggregate - that one is hemorrhoids.

                        Quote: mark1
                        And what is the coolest - it is already embodied in metal.

                        so with this I do not argue. Wrote that 72-ku can be made remotely controlled (and even BMP-1, and "six" with mechanics), but at what cost, and is it necessary? And even more so - where is the unique potential for robotization here? Potential is when something is already there, and it can be developed. The T-72/90 has none of this, a lot needs to be shaken out of the tank, or the darkness of sensors and actuators must be hung on the existing darkness.
                        When creating that tank, no one even wondered what a robot complex would be made of. Armata has orders of magnitude higher potential in this regard.

                        Say that T-72/90 possess
                        Quote: mark1
                        unique robotic potential
                        at least mislead. You see. what did you want to say?
                      3. mark1
                        mark1 30 August 2019 17: 44
                        0
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        You can show regalia, but I think it is inappropriate

                        Regalia, if any, are always appropriate (I mean in this case not honorary titles, but the grounds on which you declare your competence) otherwise it turns out "...an artist of large and small theaters whose name is well-known enough to pronounce it out loud ... "
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        You see, in order to replace a person, everything that he operates with must be remotely controlled. On each rod put a servo drive, replace the manual valve with an electrically operated one, etc.

                        This allows me to assume that you are a tank-practitioner of Buttons-faucets, all this is solved, and as you correctly noticed, including with the use of controllers. Well, there are no problems, I repeat, of a higher order.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        When creating that tank, no one even wondered what a robot complex would be made of. Armata has orders of magnitude higher potential in this regard.

                        And I agree with you. Armata is a more advanced unit, it cannot be otherwise. But we have in storage either 7 or 9 thousand reserve T-72 / T-80, and are you sure that we will have a sufficient number of qualified reservists full of health in one hour? But solving the problem can be relatively simple and not expensive. You, as I understand it, did not like the word "unique", but you must understand that it is unique not in relation to the Armata (they are not even competitors), but in relation to the Leopard, Abrams and other M-60s.
                      4. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 30 August 2019 23: 13
                        +1
                        Quote: mark1
                        Regalia, if any, are always appropriate (I mean in this case not honorary titles but the grounds on which you declare your competence)

                        I understand you perfectly. And that meant it too. If this is so important to you, then - a former employee of the specialized design bureau, a designer of light armored vehicles. From this, my words have become more significant? not sure.

                        Quote: mark1
                        This allows me to assume that you are a tanker practitioner

                        see above. It is difficult to call it a practitioner, the BTVT had the opportunity to "ride" not as a crew member, but as ... a tester of their systems, if I may say so. But I'm familiar with the device.

                        Quote: mark1
                        Well, there are no, here again, problems of a higher order.

                        yes there are problems. we made a robotic machine out of an initially unsuitable machine. Ate - to the fullest. Beautifully on paper, but in life there are usually ravines. Moreover, even experienced enterprises and design bureaus face difficulties

                        Quote: mark1
                        But we have either 7 or 9 thousand reserve T-72 / T-80s in storage, and are you sure that we will have enough qualified, healthy reservists at one o'clock? But to solve the problem can be relatively simple and not expensive.

                        my conviction is that, if God forbid, there will be a big mess, then it’s easier, simpler, faster and cheaper to call on reservists or train (albeit hastily) newly formed crews than to create robotic tanks and train operators. Despite the fact that a tank with a crew in most cases will be more effective than a robotic one. And in local wars, the existing armed forces are quite able to cope.

                        Quote: mark1
                        You, as I understand it, did not like the word "unique", but you must understand that it is unique not in relation to the Armata (they are not even competitors), but in relation to the Leopard, Abrams and other M-60s.

                        T-72/90 is a very good tank. But not a good base for creating a robotic complex.
                      5. mark1
                        mark1 31 August 2019 05: 35
                        0
                        You know, I also once had something to do with design activities in the field of -1A33 armored vehicles; 1A43, etc. so I have some idea of ​​the subject.
                    2. Grigory_45
                      Grigory_45 30 August 2019 15: 00
                      0
                      Quote: mark1
                      and you can always satiate

                      But Armata already largely meets the requirements of robotization. She has almost all systems controlled remotely, the vast majority - electrically. With a little refinement of the on-board equipment (or installation of additional), the tank can be completely controlled from the outside.
              2. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 30 August 2019 14: 44
                +1
                Quote: Gregory_45
                Quote: mark1
                T-72 / T-80 is a sin not to take advantage of their unique robotic potential.

                the fact of the matter is that the T-72/90 have no robotization potential.

                A robot based on the T-72 tank was tested. He himself determined the most dangerous goals, destroyed, etc. So, to create a robot based on the T-72 is quite possible.
                1. Grigory_45
                  Grigory_45 30 August 2019 14: 51
                  +2
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  robot based on the T-72 tank

                  The T-72-based robotic system with the T-72 tank will only have a similar appearance. Almost the entire filling of the tank will either have to be replaced, or seriously modified.

                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  create a robot based on the T-72 is quite possible

                  perhaps, but it was not about that. The interlocutor assured that 72/90 have "unique potential for robotization". Yes, they do not have such a potential, and it cannot be, for the reason stated above. An amateur is my opponent, who understands absolutely nothing in robotics, moreover, he has little idea of ​​the design of the tank.
                  1. mark1
                    mark1 30 August 2019 15: 18
                    0
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    The amateur is my opponent, who does not understand anything in robotics, and also has little idea of ​​the tank structure.

                    Well, he took himself a hero announced ... Not modestly!
              3. tank64rus
                tank64rus 30 August 2019 15: 59
                0
                They have already Nizhny Tagil made and MO has already shown.
                1. Grigory_45
                  Grigory_45 30 August 2019 16: 04
                  +1
                  Quote: tank64rus
                  They have

                  re-read the entire discussion so that you do not start over
                  1. Couchexpert
                    Couchexpert 31 August 2019 01: 06
                    +2
                    Hmmm ... Without challenging the above-written arguments - people are looking for "uniqueness" in the wrong place.
                    And she is there. It can be stated unequivocally: the T-72 is the best tank. Simply the best. At one time he was doomed to this. Yes, he is not the most secure. And not the most "piercing" one. And not the most "smart" stuff. But more 20 000 issued units can compensate for this. They will cope with any hypothetical task without a "super LMS", naval caliber guns, active defense systems, etc. They will cope with these or those losses, but they will cope (for example, you can put down the tank fleets of NATO members and estimate). In the USSR, this was clearly done not only for the sake of supporting the budgets of tank factories with orders, but apparently considering the possibility of all this sometime doing some war. And there would be enough political will for it (and now?). The calculation was simply to win any war. And this approach was quite possible. Such ends justified such means.
                    Now they are trying to create a kind of "super tank" cult: with a "super gun", in a "super armor", which is just like that, released in piece quantities, will knock everything out, spread all the defenses and drive in a straight line Washington Berlin. And of course without loss. Super same. Price too.
                    Why is he so needed? For our scale, the units "will not make the weather", but to produce in thousands - there is no money. For export? The volume of the possible sales market is also somehow not great. Plus the possibility of "technology leakage" to the buyer. Headache and hassle with some Indians.
                    The situation is reminiscent of rearmament in the shooter. And so and so they are trying to push the "Kalash" off the throne ... but it does not work. And the point is not only in lobbying, lack of "new ideas", "drank" funds. It's just really very difficult to create something that, by the sum of performance characteristics and economic indicators, would justify such a replacement. Well, for 70 years, they have nevertheless attached the planks.
                    Some kind of breakthrough is needed. But in fact, he ... "is not needed." Everyone likes everything and so. Someone rivets "Kalash", someone - T-72, and someone - F-35. Yes, there are "kosyachki", but we are already "working on it."
                    Another example: Arleigh Burke. Not "last peep" - almost 20 years in production. Yes, it is being modernized, but, perhaps, it is no longer a cake. But 60+ pieces ... You can spam everything with missiles. Yes, yes, so we are already ready to switch to "new": "Zamvolt" - lasers, railguns, etc. ... And in other things ... no, probably it's still too early ...
                    Well, they will make you a dozen "Armatoks" with 152-mm down, ride in parades, and prove that you can. Will it be more fun?
                    1. SASHA OLD
                      SASHA OLD 31 August 2019 19: 48
                      0
                      except for the last two lines, I agree with everything!
                      and about them:
                      Quote: CouchExpert
                      Will it be more fun?

                      yes it will drinks hi
      2. anzar
        anzar 30 August 2019 08: 33
        +2
        ..in the course of work on adaptation to the new tower, they also found ways to increase power ...

        Probably yes, the new AZ in an uninhabited tower made it possible to use long crowbars, which is not possible (limited) in the old towers. AND preservation 125mm caliber has the advantage that it is possible to shoot with old ammunition, of which there is a lot of stockpiled)) and simplifies the logistics.
        And the last - KAZ is not a panacea

        Yes, even if there is no interfering infantry around, they can be "defused" with a burst of ...
        1. Romario_Argo
          Romario_Argo 30 August 2019 11: 00
          +3
          Probably yes, the new AZ in an uninhabited tower allowed the use of long crowbars

          on the T-14 Armata tank, under the 152-mm gun, an AZ is being developed from the 2-tier,
          to increase the BC: 24 x 2 = 48 shells and SD.
          * AZ under the 125-mm gun has a BC: 32 shell
      3. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 30 August 2019 09: 39
        +1
        Quote: dzvero
        KAZ is not a panacea

        none of the experts had ever considered it a panacea. KAZ is only one of the means of increasing the survival of armored vehicles on the battlefield.
      4. Doctor
        Doctor 30 August 2019 10: 09
        +2
        The T-72s, 80s and 90s have reached the threshold of room for modernization purely because of their size. After all, they have their origin from the T-64

        Yes, these are tanks on which you can fight, production has been completed, repair kits, ammunition, etc. But this is the last century. In my opinion, the concept of a reckless tank is correct, with the development of radio-optical detection tools (up to individual UAVs) and SLAs with AI elements, the disadvantages of this scheme are eliminated.
      5. Per se.
        Per se. 30 August 2019 11: 17
        +5
        Quote: dzvero
        in my opinion the T-72, 80 and 90 have reached the threshold of opportunities for modernization purely because of the size.
        The dimensions of our T-72/80/90 are optimal. If we talk about the T-14, as "Ublyudka" from the hacked-down T-95 (object 195), then the layout was dictated by a 152 mm gun, and an uninhabited tower and a separate armored capsule, as a result, the overall dimensions and weight of the vehicle increased. Object 195, which weighed 55 tons, used titanium for relief. As Sergei Maev (Colonel General, from 1996 to 2003 he served as head of the Main Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and supervised the development of the T-95 tank), the T-95 tank was ready in 2005.


        It was planned, in the 2005 year, to complete state tests and put the T-95) into production. In the first year, 100 machines were to be made, then 300 machines. There were two samples of the T-95 that 15 thousands of kilometers had already departed, and the 2A83 gun had already fired 287 shots.

        It was necessary to create a third version, carry out a full-scale revision, based on the first and second samples, and on the third version, conduct state tests, make some changes and launch it into a series. And we would have the best tank in the world. But, on the finished tank they put a cross, the fine-tuning of which would cost about 500 million rubles, and they declare a "platform", spending 64 billion on R&D and R&D Armata, "unifying-crossing" the tank with a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, creating a "platform" for complex and expensive base. If the T-95 could be a breakthrough tank, a reinforcement tank, with a powerful 152 mm cannon capable of hitting the enemy at a distance inaccessible to return fire, then the T-14 is an undoubted step back, and a "platform" on such a base, if not sabotage, then stupidity ...

        In general, the calibers of tank guns, as well as the weight of vehicles, cannot endlessly increase. It is possible that in the future the tank will receive a rocket as the "main caliber", and the artillery armament will already be auxiliary, for example, a 57 mm automatic cannon.
        1. anzar
          anzar 30 August 2019 12: 28
          +2
          It is possible that in the future the tank will receive a rocket as the "main caliber", and the artillery armament will already be auxiliary, for example, a 57 mm automatic cannon.

          Yes, I think for today this is the most optimal and versatile (in terms of goals) solution. But against cannon "heavyweights" the time of arrival of the rocket (Whirlwind) is critical, although while it is flying, 57mm auto. the cannon can "strip" the enemy (deprive KAZ, dynamic protection, optics ...)
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 30 August 2019 21: 28
            0
            Quote: anzar
            Yes, I think for today it is the most optimal and universal (in terms of goals) solution.

            There is nothing to think about. This is already implemented in the BMP-3 or Chinese ZBD-04. Rocket as a weapon against tanks, 100 mm as a weapon against infantry.

            But it’s not tanks anymore. The main task of tanks, to break through any defense, today cannot be solved with weapons with a caliber of less than 152 mm.
            1. anzar
              anzar 30 August 2019 22: 01
              +1
              There is nothing to think about. It is already implemented in the BMP-3 or Chinese ZBD-04

              This is generally not true. The top product in the picture is a TANK, the task of which you have defined is "to break through any defense" (and in the city!). The BMP-3's protection is not at all the same, and 100mm of low ballistics is suitable against the "accumulation" of infantry from the WWII times)). On the other hand, the present. tanks have long been called purely "anti-tank"))
              ... to break through any defense, today it is impossible to solve with weapons with a caliber of less than 152 mm

              What kind of defense? Several rows of trench with barbed wire in front? Such a weapon eats- self-propelled guns Coalition. laughing
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 31 August 2019 18: 15
                0
                Quote: anzar
                This is generally not true. The top product in the picture is a TANK, the task of which you have defined "to break through any defense"

                Either you didn’t understand me, or I’m you :) I’m just trying to say that tanks with 152 mm weapons are the near future. Such a machine is too expensive today to equip it with a compromise type 125-130 mm caliber. But missile weapons can carry almost any machine on the battlefield. But leveling the planet’s landscape with rockets is very expensive today .. Therefore, the best option is still a cannon, well-protected armored car.
                1. anzar
                  anzar 31 August 2019 20: 06
                  0
                  ... whether I am you :)

                  Perhaps it was about UTB not yet implementedsince BMP-3 is not a tank (in terms of security). Gun tanks will certainly be (their "anti-tank capability" is better), but for most targets 57mm + missiles (for especially important / durable targets) are better. Not so expensive rockets. AND "level the landscape"Generally superfluous, targets in the city are easily hit from 57mm through the walls (only in Israel they make" refuge rooms ", from which, however, you cannot shoot))) And the ammunition load of 152mm shells will be small, since only 125 pieces entered the AZ 32mm Armata.
                  1. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 1 September 2019 02: 04
                    -1
                    Quote: anzar
                    And "leveling the landscape" is generally superfluous, targets in the city are easily hit from 57mm through the walls

                    Sorry - I do not agree! The problem is that in an urbanized landscape the goals are simply not visible. Your 57 mm will work only if you hit the enemy directly in the forehead. The 152 mm projectile works in fact over the area. Demolishes and kills everything in the shelling sector.
        2. PROXOR
          PROXOR 30 August 2019 16: 21
          +1
          You yourself have indicated the reason for rejecting the T-95
          Quote: Per se.
          At facility 195, whose weight exceeded 55 tons, titanium was used to facilitate it.

          And as we know, titanium has never been cheap material.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 31 August 2019 08: 59
            +2
            Quote: PROXOR
            You yourself have indicated the reason for rejecting the T-95
            Sergei, the reason was given not by me, but by Mr. Popovkin, on April 7, 2010, being then the deputy of Anatoly Serdyukov and the chief of armaments, he announced the termination of funding for the development of the T-95 tank and the closure of the project. According to him, the project of the car is "morally obsolete", that it is expensive and too complicated for conscripts. At the initial stage, the price for the T-95 was determined at 450 million apiece. Naturally, production tanks would cost less. For comparison, the T-14 (obviously not for conscripts), having lost the 152 mm 2A83 cannon and the auxiliary 30 mm 2A42 cannon, "without titanium", already cost "only" 400 million, and as a "golden platform", not a super tank of reinforcement ... So count the pros and cons of "saving", moreover, that it is not 2005, but the second half of 2019 ... You cannot say better than Sergei Maev about this "saving".
            But, I was objected that the machine is structurally too complicated and it will not be mastered and will be very expensive. And I said: “Yes, it is expensive and complicated, but now you will not spend 700 millions of rubles, but much more, simplify the specifications and make the car. Which class will be lower. " So I said: "You will do ... ka (ya-lu-ka)."
            That's it.
            1. PROXOR
              PROXOR 2 September 2019 10: 46
              +1
              Here you miss a little moment. 450 million in 2010 and 400 in 2019 is a difference of almost 25-30% in gold equivalent. Well, the decisions of the Ministry of Defense Serdyukov still do not give rest. Well, at least it didn’t get to the Italian ears of tanks. That would be a shame.
        3. bk0010
          bk0010 30 August 2019 21: 40
          0
          There seemed to be a claim to the gun (some kind of crap with the efficiency of muzzle energy expenditure, EMNIP (BOPS speed increased completely disproportionately to the growth of the caliber)) and the price.
      6. shahor
        shahor 30 August 2019 11: 27
        +3
        Quote: dzvero
        The T-72s, 80s and 90s have reached the threshold of room for modernization purely because of their size.

        There is nothing to be done. Dimensions, taking into account the possibility of transportation by rail, were determined by the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces. When transporting, for example, from the Far East and some other regions, it was necessary to take into account the oversized places of the tunnels. Adversary in this regard is simpler, if necessary, they drag their boxes with trailers along the developed network of good roads.
        1. PROXOR
          PROXOR 30 August 2019 16: 22
          0
          In 1944 -1945, our tankers showed the whole "enlightened" Geyrop how our tanks move along the developed network of roads))))
          1. shahor
            shahor 30 August 2019 17: 40
            -1
            Quote: PROXOR
            In 1944 -1945, our tankers showed the whole "enlightened" Geyrop how our tanks move.

            I don’t communicate with demagogues. Good luck
    3. mvg
      mvg 30 August 2019 08: 26
      +4
      KAZ of the latest generation can be installed

      So far, KAZ has not shot down the BOPs, and, in addition, the T-72 / 90’s possibilities for modernization have been exhausted. At least reach Abrams level CEP.3 or Leopard 2A7. As far as I know from the articles on VO, 2A82, which on Armata, does not fit into the T-72/80/90, and uses more powerful shells .. and 2A46, really weaker than 120/55, and obviously will not take NATO tanks into the forehead . The most advanced lead-2 and mango shells have 550-600 mm armor penetration. On the same Abrams forehead 1000-1100. Not for nothing, back in the 90's, they began to come up with something new.
      PS: Yes, and the price (official) price of the T-90M is not much cheaper than Almaty. Something 3,5 and 4,2 million $. Not from a good life we ​​rivet T-72B3.
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 30 August 2019 09: 37
        +2
        Quote: mvg
        Until KAZ knocks down BOPS

        for Afghanistan, this opportunity is declared
        1. mvg
          mvg 30 August 2019 09: 57
          +4
          for Afghanistan, this opportunity is declared

          Do you really believe? It’s one thing to shoot down an ATGM with a speed of 180-300 m / s, another BOPS, at a speed of 1800 m / s. Are we world leaders in this area? The Americans did not succeed, the Israelis did, but we, without electronics and radar, did it. Having skipped all 90 years, and many scientific institutes ..
          We declare a lot. Today I was really strained by the situation with Petrel. A small Chernobyl flies, and all 4 launches are unsuccessful .. And it is stated that it should fly through a puddle, and even secret "paths"
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 30 August 2019 10: 20
            +3
            Quote: mvg
            It’s one thing to shoot down an ATGM with a speed of 180-300 m / s, another BOPS at a speed of 1800 m / s

            Soviet and Russian KAZ were created to hit targets with speeds from 70 to 700 m / s (that Drozd that Arena). The Union was a world leader in the development of these systems (alas, but not in implementation)
            Afghanit uses both some principles of the American KAZ from TRW (two separate radars for detection and tracking), as well as original solutions (in terms of determining the time of the shooting of the ammunition), so, I think, the interception of BOPS is quite possible.
            As for the Israelis, I believe that the task of intercepting the BOPS is not very relevant for them. The main threat to their tanks is grenade throwers and ATGM calculations
            1. mvg
              mvg 30 August 2019 10: 35
              +4
              some principles of American KAZ from TRW

              I read about Drozd and Arena. I watched the test video. But more recently, the Americans tried to create their own KAZ and failed. And it’s harder to shoot down meter scrap than a rocket. And yet 1800-2000 m / s, it is not 700 m / s.
              I read about ammunition on VO, no more than 800 mm fits even in the T-90M. And there is already a completely different tower. And the mass of the tank is no longer 36-38 tons, but for 44-48 .. the chassis will not survive.
              PS: It is clear that no one wants to compete with Israel in tank battles on the BV, but now he is the world leader in KAZ. Afganita's tests have not seen. I am doubtful about the reports of the Ministry of Defense, as well as "military experts" like Sivkov .. And where are these Armats with Afganites, 20 boxes, that they ride in parades? Where is the T-90M Breakthrough .. only T-72B3, worse than the T-64BV. A very modest upgrade.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 30 August 2019 10: 49
                +2
                Quote: mvg
                Americans tried to create their own KAZ and failed

                they almost could. Their KAZ radar confidently tracked the BOPs, the problems were precisely with the interception.
                The same can be said about Trophy - the radar of the complex also sees BOPSs, but the complex is not able to intercept them, due to low speed.

                Quote: mvg
                I read about ammunition on VO, no more than 800 mm fits even in the T-90M. And there is already a completely different tower. And the mass of the tank is no longer 36-38 tons, but for 44-48 .. the chassis will not survive.

                I just wrote about this. The 2A82 gun itself can be delivered, but what to do with the BK is not clear

                Quote: mvg
                I am dubious about the reports of the Ministry of Defense, as well as "military experts" like Sivkov.

                skepticism, of course, is justified. But in this case, based on the known information about the technical appearance of Afghanistan, I consider the interception of BOPS possible.

                Quote: mvg
                And it’s harder to shoot down meter scrap than a rocket. And yet 1800-2000 m / s, it is not 700 m / s

                much more difficult. Moreover, for BOPS it would be more correct to say not to shoot down (in the sense of destroying it, like a grenade or ATGM), but to deflect it from the trajectory. Of course, there is a possibility that the "scrap" will still fall into the armor, but not along the optimal trajectory, which will either lead to its destruction or significantly reduce penetration, which, together with serious tank armor, will ensure that the tank will not be defeated.

                In what form Afganit will be on serial Armats is an open question, because KAZ is not a very cheap thing, especially since it can intercept BOPS. On Kurganets, for example, there is a very stripped-down version of this KAZ, for it only the interception of grenades and ATGMs is announced
          2. shahor
            shahor 30 August 2019 11: 35
            +3
            Quote: mvg
            Today I was really strained by the situation with the Petrel. A small Chernobyl flies, and all 4 launches are unsuccessful .. And it is stated that it should fly through a puddle, and even secret "paths"

            In this situation, I am more annoyed by our habit of speaking the language to the right and to the left about what is really not yet. First do it, then start to be proud and frighten the adversary. And then first we scare NATU, they urgently take up the creation of an analogue and, given their technological and financial capabilities, create before us something that we will pore for a long time. As they say, do not wake famously ...
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 30 August 2019 09: 53
        +2
        Quote: mvg
        2A82, which on Armata, does not fit into T-72/80/90

        the gun itself breaks in. It was created just for the modernization of voiced tanks. Another thing is that perspective (longer) shots do not fit into the existing AZ. This threatens to alter the tower and the creation of a new AZ
      3. Corn
        Corn 30 August 2019 10: 04
        0
        T-72/90 exhausted the possibilities for modernization
        very controversial statement. Now the main trends are aimed at improving the electronic filling, automation and robotization of everything and everything, and here the dimensions of the T72 do not play at all.
        At least reach Abrams level CEP.3 or Leopard 2A7.
        what do you think t90ms worse? It would be a desire to buy, to make no problem.
        2A82, which on Armata, does not fit into the T-72/80/90, and uses more powerful shells
        nonsense, it breaks into the whole trinity (guns fit into them under a 120mm unitary NATO shell and even 152 guns), but for this it will be necessary to replace the entire fighting compartment and it will cost a lot of modernization, but they’ll install it on new T90s.
        and 2A46, really weaker than 120/55
        in fact, on the contrary, the Soviet cannon gives the projectile about 10% more kinetic energy.
        The most modern lead-2 and mango shells have armor penetration
        ... have armor penetration at the level of Western analogues, and this is also a fact. An indicator such as armor penetration, it is not taken from the air, but is made up of muzzle energy, material, mass and cross-sectional area of ​​a projectile.
        Not in vain, even in 80 Gg, started to come up with something new.
        worked for the future, NATO also actively studied the possibility of installing various 140mm guns on abrams, leklerki, leopards.
        And according to the price tag (official), the price of the T-90M is not much cheaper than Almaty.
        military prices have absolutely nothing to do with real production costs.
        Not from a good life we ​​rivet T-72B3.
        why not? All the rest are also modernizing junk. I think modern serial MBTs are already a swan song of tank armored cavalry.
        1. mvg
          mvg 30 August 2019 10: 54
          +3
          10% more kinetic energy.

          You're not right. 2A46M has weaker energy. Only 2A82 is higher, just by those very 10-15%. On armor penetration there was an article on VO, the patriotic shots were compared with American 829A3 / 4, with German DM53, with Israeli shots.
          Even Lead-2 did not reach 700 mm. There was no data on Vacuum-1/2. Foreign have more.
          I talked about prices for the domestic market, these are data from the Moscow Region.
          Israel and Syria do not believe that tanks are an excess. So far, nothing better has been done on the battlefield.
          And such an upgrade is not from a good life, just the T-72A would be on the battlefield just a target for the new Leopards.
          1. mvg
            mvg 30 August 2019 11: 46
            +2
            electronic stuffing, automation and robotization of everything and everything, and here the dimensions of the T72 do not play at all.

            On the T-72 the forehead of the tower in the region of 450 mm, is completely unacceptable. They will beat from 2-3 km, not much armor reinforce. T-90M is already under 50 tons. It is necessary to change the chassis, add 7 rink. Change the tower for new ammunition, the size of Lead-2 at 740 mm, almost the maximum that fits in AZ. Change the entire filling, starting with the walkie-talkie, ending with the engine and the OMS. This is just a new tank. Yes, and change the gun. Even the Indians change them to the T-90S. Although this is also not an option. Tank is almost 50 years old.
      4. PROXOR
        PROXOR 30 August 2019 16: 24
        0
        Quote: mvg
        The most advanced lead-2 and mango shells have 550-600 mm armor penetration.

        700mm But even this is not enough. Sep. 3 has 850-900mm turret forehead armor.
      5. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 30 August 2019 20: 29
        0
        Quote: mvg
        As far as I know from the articles on VO, 2A82, which on Armata, does not fit into the T-72/80/90, and uses more powerful shells ......

        The modernization of the T-72/80/90 tanks under the 2A82 cannon was under development. If the MO wanted to buy them, they would already be in the army.

    4. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 30 August 2019 09: 51
      +3
      Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi
      Why was it necessary to create "Armata", a tank much larger in size than the T-72, T-90 and T-80, with a 125mm cannon, which is already installed on the listed tanks?

      on Armata costs 2A82, on T-72/90 - 2A46. The gun of Almaty, despite the same caliber, has greater power (muzzle energy increased by almost 1,5 times) and uses promising larger shots (with large armor penetration), which simply will not fit into the AZ of tanks, as well enhanced powder charge.

      Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi
      it is possible to install the latest generation KAZ on all operated tanks in the Russian army.

      T-72/90 have almost completely exhausted their modernization potential. You can install new sights, electronics, introduce GOP and "automatic", install new DZ, KAZ - and all the same they will remain descendants of the T-64, at a price very close to the Armata, but not surpassing it in quality.
  2. KCA
    KCA 30 August 2019 07: 32
    +3
    I doubt that installing a 14mm gun on the T-152 will give a categorically big gain, compared to 125mm, the power of the shot is not determined only by the caliber, you can increase the power of the OFS, you can increase the speed of the gun and the BOPS, you can increase the power, flight speed and accuracy of the controlled missiles, the T-14 just has a faster projectile departure speed, BOPS with depleted uranium are being developed, longer BPSs are already being tested, I did not see information about the OFS
    1. PROXOR
      PROXOR 30 August 2019 16: 29
      0
      Will give. Read above. The crowbars are longer, the powder charge is larger. as a result, the velocity at the exit of the bore is higher. Greater scrap - higher kinematics.
      And then you forgot the ATGM 9M123, which has exactly 152mm caliber. And intercepting a supersonic ATGM missile, even for a trophy, is not an easy task.
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 30 August 2019 21: 16
      +1
      Quote: KCA
      I doubt that the installation of a 14mm gun on the T-152 will give a categorically big gain, compared to 125mm, the power of the shot is not determined only by the caliber,

      For comparison, 152 mm and 125 mm tank BPS
  3. Ali Kokand
    Ali Kokand 30 August 2019 07: 33
    +2
    Reading articles about the Second World War, I learned that on German tanks were guns of relatively smaller calibers. On the panther -75 mm, on the tiger aht-aht 88 mm. And everyone notes the deadly nature of these guns. And the chambers of the captured ZiS guns were bored by the Germans. The guns of comparatively equal calibers among the Germans were more powerful and efficient. I do not know how with these indicators on modern tank guns. But will it not work out like in the last war? Is an increase in caliber always effective? I'm not special either, but questions arise.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 30 August 2019 08: 34
      +2
      Quote: Ali Kokand
      And the chambers of the captured ZiS guns were bored by the Germans.

      The Germans chambered the cameras at F-22, and not at ZiS ...
    2. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 30 August 2019 09: 36
      +3
      Quote: Ali Kokand
      Is an increase in caliber always effective?

      it's a double edged sword. On the one hand, the power of the general physical mission and TUR increases, on the other hand, the mass and dimensions of the gun itself increase, which affects habitability and is not very healthy for the chassis (created for a lighter system), ammunition is sharply reduced (due to the mass and dimensions of the shots) You can’t load 152 mm shells manually in a cramped turret, which means you need an AZ. To increase the power of the BPS, there is another option: increase the initial speed and improve the design of the projectile itself. You gave examples when a smaller caliber gun provided greater penetration than a larger caliber system (you can also recall our 57 mm ZiS-2 and 76 mm ZiS-3, 100 mm D-10 and 122 mm D-25 ) To increase the caliber must be approached very carefully, gradually, while maintaining a reasonable compromise between benefits and disadvantages. And prioritizing: more importantly, fighting armored vehicles or supporting infantry.
    3. Ilya Shikhailo
      Ilya Shikhailo 30 August 2019 09: 36
      0

      "More powerful and more effective" - ​​we read the pedigree? Or how? There are Soviet tests for 44 years, in terms of penetration and efficiency, there, as a result, Nemchury did not have any advantages in penetration, with the same type of Soviet guns. And yet, yes, WWII had different armor and other weapons, and the Germans did not have enough 75 and 88 mm guns of the Panthers and Tigers by the end of the war, they took up 128 and 150 mm. Yes, and "Panthers" and "Tigers" were created to combat armored vehicles, and not to annihilate everything, including fortifications, like the IS-2. You can just as well say that in the First World War on armored vehicles 75 mm was behind the eyes, nafig somewhere further to go.
    4. dzvero
      dzvero 30 August 2019 12: 06
      0
      The difference is in the requirements for creating guns. The 76 mm cannon of a thirty-four is almost identical to the "regiment". In 41-42, her parameters were more than sufficient. The tank guns of the early "fours" were worse and only in the 42nd came out on an equal footing.
      The 75 mm gun of the "Panther" was already created as an anti-tank gun, and the "akht-komma-aht" was actually an anti-aircraft gun, crammed into heavy vehicles. Their ballistics were excellent (a very long range of a direct shot), and the muzzle energy was higher than that of field guns of the same caliber. We can say that only on the T-34-85 a gun appeared, which was close in quality to the German (because it also comes from anti-aircraft guns).
      Modern tank guns of almost one caliber. The difference is due to the shells. The increase in caliber is unlikely to happen in the very near future, because it is necessary to accordingly change the design of the machine (and in fact develop a new tank). If it weren’t for Armata, then in the West tank guns of 140 mm and more would have been only in the dreams of the designers ...
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 30 August 2019 15: 18
        +1
        Quote: dzvero
        If it weren’t for Armata, then in the West tank guns of 140 mm and more would have been only in the dreams of designers

        Debatable. Armata had nothing to do with it, probably information on promising Soviet tanks, including with a 152-mm gun, leaked to the West.

        Work on the creation of a 140-mm tank gun began in Switzerland in the late 1980s, in 1989 it was installed on the Leopard-2 and fired



        Before the collapse of the USSR, the 140-mm gun was developed by the British, in 1993 they even shot at the firing range from the machine

        and this is Abrams, and also with a 140 mm gun


        after the advent of Almaty, the Germans became excited with their new 135 mm gun
  4. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
    Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 30 August 2019 08: 01
    +2
    The 292 facility in Kubinka. For the object in the 80 year at the Kirov plant it was proposed to develop an 152-mm rifled gun. Considering that 90-97% of the targets of tanks on the battlefield are armored vehicles, the 152-mm OFS was supposed to destroy any field fortifications encountered, and a caliber chamber armor-piercing projectile was proposed to combat tanks. At a distance, he could not penetrate the armor of existing MBTs even then, but the target and its crew received severe damage from the received kinetic energy. In addition, both shells and charges could be used from field and naval 152-mm artillery. But the main obstacle to adoption was the too low barrel resource, the complexity of production and the requirements of the USSR Ministry of Defense for tank guns.
  5. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 30 August 2019 09: 37
    +1
    152 mm or 125 mm? It's not that you can't do without half a liter, but even a couple of liters won't be enough! "Small-caliber" supporters brandish such arguments that 125-mm shots can be taken much more, the ballistics of these guns have not yet fully exhausted their development potential, AZ is simpler, cheaper, more compact, more reliable, 125-mm guns are cheaper, more durable ... Escho ... if we are the first to switch to 152 mm caliber, then we will provoke NATO to "a new round of tank rearmament"! (they say, NATO has already developed 140-mm tank guns ... the enemies are just waiting for the Russian Federation to give an excuse ...) Supporters of "big weapons" argue differently: 1. The purpose of tanks has changed since WW2 ... a tank doesn't need so many anti-tank rounds; 2.Correct measures in the "field" of logistics will not allow the problem of providing tanks with ammunition to arise ... 3.The latest advances in "armored construction" create difficulties for the development of sufficiently effective anti-tank shells in the caliber of 125 mm .... Adoption of 152-mm tank shells guns will allow the creation of anti-tank shells that are quite effective against modern and promising tanks without any special problems ... moreover, the 152 mm caliber makes it possible to create effective and relatively inexpensive guided shells, self-aiming shells without any problems ...
  6. Whowhy
    Whowhy 30 August 2019 10: 04
    +2
    I don’t understand (can anyone explain) - what is the modern concept of using tanks on the battlefield?
    I have read more than once that "tanks with tanks only fight with bad commanders." Previously, the increase in caliber was dictated by the need to destroy various fortifications on the battlefield. Now the war has gone different - maneuverable. What are the goals on the modern battlefield for large cannon caliber? Maybe, on the contrary, it is necessary to reduce the caliber (for example, to 100mm) and thereby increase the ammunition (when maneuvering, it is often necessary to act in isolation), increase mobility, active defense, situational awareness and develop new types of shells for modern combat (for example, an increased projectile power with a radio fuse that detonates at a certain distance from the armor, detonating all passive protection and demolishing all surveillance devices)? ....
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 30 August 2019 11: 57
      +2
      Quote: whowhy
      I have read more than once that "tanks with tanks only fight with bad commanders."

      This is an online fake. Just the same, a good commander is fighting. Just a good commander will make upcoming tanks had a minimal chance of colliding with defending tanks.

      Quote: whowhy
      What are the goals on the modern battlefield for large cannon calibers?

      Similar
      In addition, do not forget that 152 guided missiles will potentially have much greater capabilities than dying 125 Tours

      Quote: whowhy
      Maybe, on the contrary, it is necessary to reduce the caliber (for example, to 100 mm) and thereby increase the ammunition

      It’s easier just to replenish it in time, which is more accessible during a maneuver war.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 30 August 2019 12: 30
        0
        The defending tanks are good. But better in their place are mobile ATGMs on a passable chassis.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 30 August 2019 12: 37
          0
          Quote: garri-lin
          The defending tanks are good. But better in their place are mobile ATGMs on a passable chassis.

          Both are better. In addition, covered by infantry and artillery.
          SPTRK lose their advantage at medium and short distances, moreover, they are completely defenseless against enemy infantry.
          Therefore, the ideal composition of PTREz. This is an ATGM battery plus a tank company plus a motorized rifle platoon.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 30 August 2019 12: 44
            0
            But the main strike force will be exactly the ATGM. They are cheaper and can be concentrated more and faster. All the same, the tank against the tank is expensive. And anti-tank anti-tank systems are more effective. Armor penetration is greater. You can shoot in the forehead. It is better to bring to a duel on BOPS only in a very extreme case.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 30 August 2019 16: 28
              +1
              Quote: garri-lin
              But the main striking force

              There is nothing "basic" here, everything works in a complex. And POZ, and SPTRK, and tanks
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 30 August 2019 18: 58
                0
                And the range? Compare chrysanthemum and tank. Or a cornet and a tank. Moreover, the defending side can choose the terrain and take advantage of the range. All the same, "tanks do not fight with tanks" is not an internet fake, but a reasonable approach.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 30 August 2019 20: 02
                  0
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  And the range?

                  And what is "range"? The enemy is moving, the range is reduced. And the more, the less the ATGM has advantages.
                  And this is precisely the problem that the tank unit in the tank of the reserve can solve.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 30 August 2019 20: 33
                    0
                    It is for this that the tanks are part of the reserve reserve. But the main work will be done by ATGMs from a distance where tanks are not effective. Tanks, in fact, are strengthening the reserve of reserve from infantry as well. In history, there are many tanks that, with their guns, looked more like a PT weapon. The Russian tank school followed a slightly different path. Once, on IS 2, a step was already taken to radically increase the caliber, but not for PT purposes. A modern 125 mm gun is sufficient for most targets on the battlefield. And anti-tank tanks need anti-tank rifle through the barrel. Or it will be decided to make the tank the carrier of URO in vertical control launchers and with a different caliber of mm that way 180. And with the means to overcome the KAZ. What I expected from Armata if honestly.
                2. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 30 August 2019 22: 44
                  0
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  All the same, "tanks with tanks do not fight" is not an internet fake, but a reasonable approach.

                  Nevertheless, the main weapon of the tank is a smoothbore gun, which differs from rifled guns in a greater kinetic energy, which is in the fight against a heavily armored target. important. So the tank is sharpened for the fight with a machine tool.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 31 August 2019 01: 21
                    0
                    The tank is essentially a station wagon. Google what lay in the combat tank of the USSR and what is now. In addition to the high velocity of the projectile, the smoothbore gun: easier, cheaper, easier to manufacture, tenacious, less accurate, etc. The benefits of the smoothbore are complex. The tank must fight tanks, but only as a last resort, if there are no other means.
      2. Whowhy
        Whowhy 30 August 2019 13: 22
        -1
        This is an online fake. Just the same, a good commander is fighting. Just a good commander will make the advancing tanks have a minimal chance of colliding with defending tanks.

        So you said the same thing. :)
        Similar
        In addition, do not forget that 152 guided missiles will potentially have much greater capabilities than dying 125 Tours

        What are the similar ones? Pillboxes are not made now, but for any building even 100mm is a lot. Of course, 152mm is "cooler", but the price and rationality? Here are 152mm low ballistics and high elevation angles (so that the helicopters can reach and work with a canopy) - this is probably good ... Only then, the tanks should still have a UAV unit attached so that all this can be spotted in time.
        It’s easier just to replenish it in time, which is more accessible during a maneuver war.

        With our mess, and in isolation? Well I do not know.... :)
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 30 August 2019 14: 58
          0
          You will not believe it, but now sometimes such bunkers do that sales of 152 mm are not enough. Construction waste in the city is an excellent building material.
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 30 August 2019 16: 44
          +1
          Quote: whowhy
          So you said the same thing. :)

          No.
          For often the opposite even happens, a good commander will definitely have to fight tanks. It all depends on the tactical situation.

          Quote: whowhy
          Which are similar?

          Similar reasons. Projectile 152 has a much greater power of action at the target, which allows it to perform the task of supporting the infantry and destroying the enemy’s air and missile forces, including those sheltered, with greater efficiency.

          Quote: whowhy
          Bunkers are not doing right now, but to any building and 100mm is a lot.

          The probability of hitting even a "soft" target in 152-mm is much higher due to the much more powerful fragmentation action. Not to mention targets like the BMP in the trench

          Quote: whowhy
          That's 152mm low ballistics and high elevation angles (so that helicopters could get out and canopy can work) - this is probably good

          And what good is there if the tanks will not be able to work on the enemy's armored vehicles because of this very "low ballistics"? Everything has a price.

          Quote: whowhy
          With our mess, and in isolation? Well I do not know.... :)

          Give up.
          Read sometime how at one time they solved the problem of replenishing the ammo of flamethrowers. That's where the ambush was. On the one hand, there is a noisy compressor, on the other, a flammable mixture, on the third, all this must be dragged as close as possible to the "front end" And at the same time the fire mixture and air were enough for 6-8 short or 1-2 long shots ... And nothing, solved the problem. "With our that mess"
          1. Whowhy
            Whowhy 31 August 2019 08: 58
            -1
            And what good is there if the tanks will not be able to work on the enemy's armored vehicles because of this very "low ballistics"? Everything has a price.

            Well, at long distances - the same TOURS, but at close range and high-explosive enough with such a caliber. Again, facilitating the design, increasing mobility, versatility - you can work on helicopters hiding in the folds of the terrain (in the presence of UAV support, of course).
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 31 August 2019 09: 03
              0
              Quote: whowhy
              Well, at long distances - the same Tours

              Caliber of 100? They are useless.

              Quote: whowhy
              and on near and high explosive enough with such a caliber

              Enough is enough, only you will not hit them on a moving target. Because once again, you have to pay for everything. Low ballistics makes shooting at a moving target a sportloto due to the size of the affected space.
              1. Whowhy
                Whowhy 31 August 2019 11: 32
                0
                Caliber of 100? They are useless.

                Something you, it seems to me, is already "twitching" - in this case it was about a 152mm low ballistics weapon.
                Enough is enough, only you will not hit them on a moving target.

                This is just an engineering task to develop more advanced ballistic computers. In addition, for a 152mm projectile (and for a low-ballistic gun, the amount of explosives can be increased due to the wall thickness) 1-2 meters nearby is still a hit.

                By the way, you wrote about the best fragmentation effect of a large-caliber projectile, which causes some doubt, since studies were carried out during the Second World War, which showed that most of the fragments (large) remain in the funnel, and small ones do not form (fly into dust). So it is necessary to stuff such a shell with ready-made striking elements and make a radio fuse (at least) - so that the explosion takes place in the air, or (as is now fashionable), detonate at a certain distance. In both cases, a low-ballistic gun is preferable for electronics because of the lower magnitude of the accelerations arising from the shot.
                1. Bodipancher
                  Bodipancher 1 September 2019 06: 47
                  0
                  If you want a lot of fragments and a larger area of ​​destruction, you need cluster munition, which can be implemented in 152 mm. OFS is needed in a concrete-breaking design for the destruction of fortifications.
  7. Corn
    Corn 30 August 2019 10: 07
    0
    152mm on MBT, this is clearly redundant.
    The very case when tanks reached the limit in the traditional concept, they had to evolve into something new.
  8. Operator
    Operator 30 August 2019 11: 10
    -4
    T-14 is just an experienced platform, it will not go into the real series.

    The T-72 / 90 will be replaced by a tank in the mass size of the T-72 / 90 with the following performance characteristics:
    - crew of two people;
    - AI instead of the gunner-operator;
    - overview based on augmented reality system;
    - all-angle KAZ with optical guidance of counter-ammunition;
    - short-barreled large-caliber gun with a guided active-rocket projectile;
    - GTE with integrated planetary gear.

    Until these units are finished, a new domestic MBT will not appear.
  9. yehat
    yehat 30 August 2019 12: 40
    0
    Quote: Gregory_45
    the fact of the matter is that the T-72/90 have no robotization potential.

    The problem of modernization is often that any tightly packed unit is difficult to change somehow at all
    therefore traditionally crimped machines are somehow difficult to change significantly
    In my opinion, it is necessary to radically revise the design system itself, so that
    all kinds of reserves for structural changes, from more convenient access to units to configuration options and even intentionally left voids.
    Finally, it is worth thinking about some kind of real camouflage of cars, except for paint and a decrease in the possibility of pointing a tank to the URO.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 30 August 2019 15: 50
      0
      Quote: yehat
      to provide
      all kinds of reserves for structural changes, from more convenient access to units to configuration options and even intentionally left voids

      it’s all good (tanks are designed in the West according to a similar concept), but our Defense Ministry had its own strict requirements - a powerful weapon, good mobility, the highest possible protection - and all this within the magic 50 tons. Here, willingly or not, you will begin to clamp the reserved volume, because otherwise you will not fit into the mass (at least until they have invented armor in weight comparable to polystyrene foam)

      And so, the approach, of course, would be reasonable. One side. Because the layout of our vehicles is very dense ... This is not only a minus during modernization, but also a minus as a combat vehicle - i.e. any penetration, as a rule, leads to damage to something substantial.

      By the way, this is not only in tank building. In shipbuilding, too. Compared to foreign ships, we manage to shove more weapons into a smaller displacement. Due to what? Again, due to a denser layout and, as a result, less modernization potential.
  10. yehat
    yehat 30 August 2019 16: 23
    0
    Quote: Gregory_45
    and all this within a magical 50 tons

    in order for the machine to become flexible for modifications, you do not need a lot of mass
    I’m sure that if the developers were given free rein, they would have done very differently,
    in order to provide a more affordable opportunity for upgrades.
    Well, for example, a mass of 50 tons, approx. And if the tank is to carry a patrol in 1 city in the next 5 years,
    and no marches, crossing bridges - is it completely impossible to hang anything on it?
    or another example - they drove the tank to where there are no anti-tank guns, but there are hundreds of grenade launchers of various modifications. Is there really no way to configure protection?
    And personally, it seems to me that tanks need to provide basic modifications to support the infantry - turrets like the Americans like, a telephone for communication, a mortar in the stern, a bucket and other stray.
    It just needs to be a set of attachments.
  11. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 30 August 2019 17: 56
    +1
    The 152-mm gun is already the armament of the self-propelled gun, and not the tank. Range and projectile power no longer require entering the affected area of ​​anti-tank weapons.

    Also, an armature with a 152-mm gun for direct aiming will be redundant, and for closed positions it is much more expensive than classic heavy self-propelled guns.
    1. Bodipancher
      Bodipancher 1 September 2019 06: 43
      0
      But it seems to me that Armata could take on the role of a heavy tank. 152 mm allows the use of cluster munitions for infantry, guaranteed to destroy any tank, capable of direct destruction destroy the most powerful fortifications. Otherwise, why buy a tank three times more expensive if in its power it is almost no different from the same T-72/90 and essentially duplicates medium tanks. IMHO Armata should be with a 152 mm gun.
  12. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 30 August 2019 21: 35
    0
    By the way, many thanks to the author for the article! And then even a little plus I almost forgot to put carried away by a heated discussion :)
  13. storm
    storm 1 September 2019 12: 08
    0
    Russia, according to its economic capabilities, without serious cuts in other weapons programs, can produce 250-300 units per year. equipment on the Armata platform:
    - A regiment of T-14 tanks with a 152 mm gun
    - The regiment of heavy BMP T-15 with 57 automatic gun A-220 (57 mm)
    - SAU Coalition Regiment
    - KShM based on T-15
    - Engineering vehicles T-16
    On the basis of such "kits" in each combined-arms army, it is necessary to form shock divisions.

    those. to equip 12 combined arms armies in 12 years it will be necessary to produce about 3000 units. technicians on the Armat platform.
    This is a completely "lifting" and solvable task.
    1. yehat
      yehat 2 September 2019 14: 31
      +1
      Quote: assault
      On the basis of such "kits" in each combined arms army it is necessary to form shock divisions ...
      This is a completely "lifting" and solvable task.


      This is bullshit. nothing good will come of it if you fully arm parts.
      in my opinion, this is such a special platform that it can only be used as part of amplification parts. for example, adding a regiment or battalion to a tank division.
      in much the same way that the Germans used heavy battalions.
  14. yehat
    yehat 2 September 2019 14: 26
    0
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    The 52-mm gun is already the armament of the self-propelled gun, and not the tank. Range and projectile power no longer require entering the affected area of ​​anti-tank weapons.

    Also, an armature with a 152-mm gun for direct aiming will be redundant, and for closed positions it is much more expensive than classic heavy self-propelled guns.

    Well, the Germans used short-range self-propelled guns and with more solid calibers - 200 and even 380.
  15. pion203
    pion203 3 September 2019 01: 50
    0
    Good topic, respect to the author. No conflict without tanks is needed. WWII was the pinnacle of the use of tanks and one should not think that we have gone far from this. Everything is the same - breakthrough, infantry support, ambushes, duel battles. Everything is the same - armor, optics, speed-machines, turret traverse, and of course the caliber! Remember how history erased our BT-5, BT-7, German T-1, T-2 in the very first year of the war. Let's treat our tankers with respect and give them the T-90MS "breakthrough" with 82 guns and the Armata T-14 with 83 guns, and sell 72,64,62, it will be cheaper, and save a lot of boys.
  16. sobi
    sobi 3 September 2019 08: 50
    -1
    sense of 152 caliber ... it is redundant
    and there are unsolved problems
    1. Unresolved issue of barrel wear
    2. no new shells
    3. significantly reduces ammunition
    4. and to solve the first 3 points, billions of rubles are needed ... many billions of rubles
    the sense of writing what a pipe 152 could do, but investing in it is futile ...
    125 caliber is quite capable
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 3 September 2019 14: 42
      -1
      Quote: Sobi
      3. significantly reduces ammunition

      this is either a lie or a gross error of most "experts", including the official ones. Below is the proof on the example of a 125mm gun, pay attention to the difference in the diameter of the projectile and the sleeve-obturator.

      If, without smearing the nozzles on the walls, then the caliber of the ammunition is not the fault of the gun’s caliber, but the ammunition storage machine.
      1. sobi
        sobi 4 September 2019 08: 52
        -1
        I did not say that the caliber was to blame, just by offering the 152 pipe it is necessary to solve many problems.
        he said everything correctly, a substantial reduction in the ammunition load of about 30 rounds.
        if everything is modernized to expand to build on and so it is clear that you can cram as much, or even more.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 4 September 2019 21: 42
          -1
          That is, in your opinion, frankly lie, manipulate and carry nonsense: is this normal? it was a rhetorical question, it makes no sense to discuss your theses, everything is clear with you. not interested in idle talk ...
  17. cat Rusich
    cat Rusich 4 September 2019 00: 34
    0
    My opinion. The "new tank" needs to be equipped with a 152mm gun. Historical example: T-6 (aka Tiger) 88mm gun and 100mm frontal armor. T-34-76 was obliged to approach the Tiger and shoot "point-blank" (300-400m). T-6 could destroy "34-ku" for 1km (1000m). The position was leveled only by the 85mm gun (T-34-85). "Old tanks" (T-72, 80, 90) need to be upgraded under BOPS Vacuum (125mm x 1000mm), I don't know how to put it inside the "old tank". Against scrap (BOPS - 120-125mm) there is no acceptance (KAZ), except for other scrap (BOPS - 152mm good ) hi
  18. pion203
    pion203 4 September 2019 03: 05
    0
    Excessive power, excess caliber - this phrase is 80 years old and it concerned pto zis-2-57mm in relation to German tanks of the first issues and the Czech T-38, and then after a year they regained consciousness. Now, that in excess, armor penetration is at a good level, plus Krasnopol, plus Kornet with its 1100mm penetration - all this is a 2A83 cannon - nothing superfluous. The enemy should know that there is a tank piercing it in the forehead and then it starts to work the second no less terrible weapon is the horror of death.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 4 September 2019 21: 44
      -1
      too weak for horror, nuclear weapons, ICBMs, the Kyrgyz Republic and their strategic carriers are much more effective.
      1. pion203
        pion203 5 September 2019 00: 11
        0
        Yes, they are more effective, but we are talking about tanks and tankmen. I am a living witness of the stories of battle tankers (from the environment of my father’s friends), one of them is blind with a deified face mask. They have been dead for a long time, but what they were telling is deeply remembered. I just convey their words, if I may say so.
    2. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 6 September 2019 01: 54
      0
      Quote: pion203
      then a year later

      I congratulate you on the propoganda very successfully copy-paste. IRL guns and other anti-aircraft guns including that the tower demolishing a tiger tower Before the war, many many thousands were made, many many thousands, like BS-3 and many others. the Nazis came to their senses by starting to build 60 tonnes of wedges at once so that as square
  19. Evil Booth
    Evil Booth 6 September 2019 01: 52
    0
    wow! 152,4 mm wow weighs 2 times more than the 125th, 20 rounds of 50 and not 25 kg, 5-6 tons cannon instead of 2,5 tons, or 15-30% of the armor mass in the tank. In about many tanks, out of 50 tons of armor, not even 30, so take away another 2-4 tons from there. At the same time, it is necessary to push large shots into the same hull, the tower is therefore "smaller" there, but there is also a nuance =) the sides of this are smaller due to the large size of the gun by 1-2 squares and are essentially equal in size to the frontal cheeks of a round tower ... Py sy the shot in the photo won 150 centimeters
  20. Evil Booth
    Evil Booth 6 September 2019 17: 22
    +1
    Quote: mvg
    Even Lead-2 did not reach 700 mm. There was no data on Vacuum-1/2. Foreign have more.

    oh fso. the data is lead; the data is already official and much thicker than 700. The most important thing is to simply write to 900 and 600 and there will be runoff. Sterp paper is not a shell.
  21. psiho117
    psiho117 10 September 2019 22: 04
    0
    Quote: Gregory_45
    It is better to immediately bind the Death Star and hang it in orbit

    In fact, the only sound thought in this tank tank.
    For behind whom heaven is the Pope! bully

    And the tanks ... The tanks are already at the sunset of their career (at least the tanks that we see them now).
  22. storm
    storm 28 September 2019 15: 16
    0
    If it is possible to increase the firepower of a tank several times only by replacing a combat module with a 152 mm gun, then this definitely needs to be used.
    We have plenty of "infantry" tanks with 125 smooth-bore cannon both in the troops and in the reserves, but there are simply no shock assault and anti-tank armored vehicles.
    Nobody canceled the need for assault tanks capable of destroying protected firing points in basements of buildings with armor-piercing and high-explosive fragmentation 152 mm shells, armor-piercing - flashing the armor of any modern and promising western tanks at a distance of 5-6 km, using more powerful ATGMs with a caliber of 152 mm with range of 10 km or more.
  23. Klingon
    Klingon 28 September 2019 23: 58
    0
    Quote: Alekseev
    Quote: Obi Wan Kenobi
    Maybe I'm certainly not right, due to the fact that I'm not an expert. But...

    And I, although a specialist, agree with you in many ways.
    But those who advocate the transition to a larger caliber are not raising the question correctly.
    All calibers for their tasks require both heavy equipment and medium-sized vehicles, for it is simply ridiculous to equip troops with only 50-70 ton mastodons with limited maneuverability, especially in the sense of overcoming natural barriers and requiring significantly larger rear and technical support.
    The armata is the same, just a base, a platform, for various heavy vehicles and, indeed, with a 125-mm gun, does not greatly exceed the T-90 of the latest modifications.
    This does not mean that this caliber is not needed at all on the new platform. Here, the price-quality ratio will play a decisive role. If the 125-mm Armata is not great ahead of the T-90M in combat effectiveness, then it should not be pulled ahead too much in price.

    as an expert explain why it is necessary to caliber 152 to push the power to increase? wouldn't there be enough caliber of 130 or 140 mm.? at the same time, and more ammunition and recoil and dimensions a little less than 152 mm
  24. krvl
    krvl 6 October 2019 14: 26
    0
    the author did not blunt the main point: why and why exactly 152mm ??? I will explain now, at the same time wondering that the author missed this !!! The fact is that this is the minimum possible size of a shell in which it is possible to place NUCLEAR ammunition! That is, the offensive in this case looks like that the tanks themselves, without the support of tactical - strategic aviation, all sorts of difficult-moving pion-hyacinths, are able to break through ANY, however much separated defense. You cannot shove a nuclear charge into a smaller diameter, and unnecessary destruction into a larger one, you get tired of getting around funnels from your own shots, and you would have to inflate all sizes.