Military Review

MGCS Cannon: International Caliber Dispute

110
In the framework of the joint project Main Ground Combat System (MGCS), French and German enterprises will determine the final look of a promising main combat tankincluding choose the most effective weapons. Different versions of guns and related equipment are proposed and are being considered, but the final choice has not yet been made.



MBT Leopard 2 one of the latest modifications. Despite a major upgrade, the tank retains the 120-mm cannon. Wikimedia Commons Photos


General provisions


The goal of the joint German-French project MGCS is to create a promising main battle tank that is distinguished by high performance and is able to compete with modern and future models. Perhaps the main reason for the creation of this project is the Russian MBT T-14, surpassing all foreign models.

Tank MGCS firepower should exceed existing armored vehicles such as Leopard 2 and Leclerc. This problem can be solved in several basic ways. The first involves the modernization of existing 120-mm smoothbore guns and the creation of more effective ammunition. The second method is radical and offers the creation of a new tool of increased caliber.

Work on tank guns of new calibres started a few decades ago and even led to the appearance of real models. They were tested, but not put in a series. After the launch of MGCS, these developments were remembered; new similar projects also appeared. Now they are considered not separately, but in the context of creating the future MBT.

German 130 mm


One of the most common tank guns in the world is the 120-mm smoothbore system Rh-120 from the German company Rheinmetall. Such guns, in particular, are mounted on Leopard-2 tanks. In the past, the modernization of this gun was carried out by increasing the length of the barrel and improving the design. In 2016, Rheinmetall presented a bolder project.

At the Eurosatory 2016 exhibition for the first time they showed a prototype of a tank gun of the caliber 130 mm. It was a modified version of the serial Rh-130 with the corresponding changes. For the gun, several new unitary shots of the main types were created.


Rheinmetall Rh-130 gun prototype. There are two shots in a transparent display case: on the left is an 130-mm product. Photo Bmpd.livejournal.com


Experienced gun Rh-130 received barrel length 51 caliber (6630 mm) with a protective casing and an enlarged chamber. The main design and technological solutions were borrowed from the 120-mm guns. The resulting sample has a total length of approx. 7 m and weight (including installation and recoil devices) - 3 tons. A high-explosive projectile shot for such a gun has a length of 1,3 m and weighs 30 kg.

By increasing the caliber by 10 mm (8%) and increasing the chamber, a sharp increase in characteristics was achieved. It was argued that the muzzle energy of a projectile upon departure from Rh-130 was 50% higher than that of a projectile of an 120-mm gun. Due to this, it is possible to increase the effective firing range and / or armor penetration.

In 2016, it was argued that further development of the project and fine-tuning the gun to the required state would take 8-10 years. It can find application in modernization projects of existing MBTs, as well as in the creation of completely new models of armored vehicles. Since a certain time, the Rh-130 cannon began to be mentioned in the context of the MGCS program.

The topic of the 130 mm gun for MGCS was raised again a few days ago. Publications appeared in the foreign press about the desire of the Rheinmetall company to promote this development as part of a joint program and bring it to use on real technology. However, it is too early to talk about the results of such activities. As far as we know, the tactical and technical requirements for MGCS have not yet been formed, and the customer has not yet indicated the desired weapon parameters.

French 140 mm


For one reason or another, the military of the two countries may require such high firing characteristics that the 130-mm gun from Rheinmetall will not be powerful enough. In this case, another promising model developed by the French industry can be used at MGCS. Back in the first half of the nineties, GIAT (now Nexter) created a project for the 140 mm caliber gun.


Experienced Leclerc tank with 140-mm gun. Photo Ftr.wot-news.com


As far back as 1996, the experimental Leclerc tank with enhanced weapons was brought to the test. In the modified tower of the T4 type, an 140-mm gun with a barrel length of 55 calibers (7700 mm) was placed. During the modernization, the MBT also received an automatic loader capable of working with 140-mm unitary shots about 1,5 m long.

The prototype passed the necessary tests, including fire. More than 200 shots were fired from the new gun and the calculated characteristics were confirmed. The overall effectiveness of the 140-mm guns is 70% higher than the corresponding index of existing smaller-caliber systems.

However, in the mid-nineties the potential of a promising gun was unnecessary. The serial Leclerks continued to equip the less powerful 120-mm gun from GIAT, and the prototype with the T4 turret and reinforced weapons was sent for storage. He was remembered only a few years ago, after the launch of the new MGCS program.

Since then, the 140 mm GIAT / Nexter tank gun has been regularly mentioned in the context of a joint German-French project. In addition, it is often called the most successful option. weapons for MGCS, who have every chance to enter the final version of the project. For obvious reasons, such estimates are often of French origin.

Problems of choice


As far as is known, the tactical and technical requirements for MBC MBTs have not yet been developed. Moreover, all issues have not yet been resolved, even at the organization level. Until recently, the French and German sides could not agree on the shares of their participation in the program, which almost led to the loss of one of the participants. However, such problems are resolved and new agreements appear.

In the absence of new organizational difficulties, the two countries will soon be able to move on to formulating requirements and the appearance of the future MBCS MBT. It is at this stage that the issue of armaments will be solved and a search will be made for suitable solutions - existing or requiring development.


140- and 120-mm unitary shots of French production. Photo Ftr.wot-news.com


At the moment, two types of new weapons are offered, which are at different degrees of readiness. The German 130-mm and the French 140-mm guns have obvious advantages over existing systems of the 120 mm caliber, but at the same time they are not without some characteristic drawbacks. Apparently, the customer will choose between these two tools or require improvement of any of them.

Due to the larger caliber, the Nexter gun has an advantage in fire characteristics - it is 70% more efficient than serial 120-mm guns. The Rheinmetall 130-mm product is noticeably weaker than the French competitor, but has smaller dimensions and uses more compact shots. Thus, the military of the two countries faces a difficult choice. It is necessary to take into account firepower, possible ammunition and a number of other factors that cannot be reduced to caliber alone.

The events of recent months show that not only technical and technological factors will affect the choice of tools for MGCS. Of great importance is the question of the origin of the product. It is obvious that Germany will promote the development of Rheinmetall, and France will intercede for its Nekster. This means that the project may face new disputes and difficulties.

International consensus


For a number of reasons, shaping the look of the future MGCS main tank is unlikely to be quick and easy. The enterprises of the two countries will argue on all major issues, but it is expected that they will be able to find mutually beneficial solutions. Similar processes in the form of disputes and consent are already observed in the context of armaments.

Two countries are actively proposing to use their own cannons and provide arguments in favor of their positions. At the same time, the German and French sides agree that it is impossible to use existing 120-mm guns on a promising MBT due to limited characteristics. However, there is no agreement otherwise, and disputes continue. The final decision will be up to the customer in the person of the armies of the two countries, and what it will be is a big question.
Author:
110 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. sen
    sen 23 October 2019 05: 25
    +4
    A larger caliber is needed. This is a fact, but at the same time, the rate of fire, ammunition decreases, the total weight grows. It can be like in WWII, place it on self-propelled guns in addition to MBT.
    1. PROXOR
      PROXOR 23 October 2019 10: 17
      +2
      What for? There is a Chrysanthemum. It is less noticeable and can work on the principle of shot and forgotten.
      1. sen
        sen 23 October 2019 12: 39
        +2
        Too expensive for "normal" targets and the high-explosive action is weaker.
        1. PROXOR
          PROXOR 23 October 2019 14: 28
          +3
          So you will decide why you need an ACS. If it is an anti-tank agent, then there is no better Chrysontema. If against the infantry, then we have such a "BOUQUET" in service: Carnation, Acacia, Peony, Tulip. And also the more modern MSTA-S and the Coalition.
          1. sen
            sen 24 October 2019 08: 17
            +2
            We are talking about direct fire, normal armor protection is needed, but the Buket has weak armor. And against the "scrap" - a subcaliber projectile, foreign KAZ are powerless. And the 152-mm projectile will have what you need.
            1. PROXOR
              PROXOR 24 October 2019 09: 37
              0
              So I am writing to you! What direct fire is more effective than Chrysanthemum. It is smaller, the hull from the BMP-3 is easily hidden, the launch does not unmask the firing position like a shot of a tank gun, and the rocket breaks through all the samples of NATO armored forces at the moment. And Chrysanthemum will be able to change position faster.
              No, really. If you get involved in the construction of an armored vehicle with 152mm weapons, then this should be MBT.
              By the way: at one time there was an object 120, just with such a 152mm gun. But he didn’t go into the series, since at that time the T-64 passed the test, the 125mm gun of which was already redundant against the entire menagerie of NATO.
              Modern combat conditions dictate the need for a good control system for working at long distances with a QUALITY thermal imager and a ballistic computer. Plus the same high-quality optics for a vehicle commander with a "panorama". It all costs a lot of money. And here's the problem, a little cheaper than a tank destroyer with dubious combat qualities, or a little more expensive than a full-fledged MBT, which, having the same tank gun, compensates for all the functionality of the ACS and at the same time will be perfectly protected.
            2. sen
              sen 25 October 2019 05: 49
              +1
              As the experience of the Second World War shows, with equal armor protection and weight, self-propelled guns allow you to have a larger caliber gun than a tank.
  2. Igor Ivanov_4
    Igor Ivanov_4 23 October 2019 05: 43
    -4
    E = m × c ^ 2 no one has yet canceled or modified physics! Increased the caliber, please squared that mass gain increase by the energy necessary to maintain at least the same speed, otherwise the game is not worth the cigarettes smoked. Fly, and not bad, but as Zhvanetsky said - if the result is not important to you! But seriously, the classic art systems, as it were, are no longer relevant. Of course, a shell is cheaper than a rocket and flies faster and reload faster, but the shell is a fool’s bullet, and the rocket is smart. You can release 100 shells and alas, do not hit! But because everyone has protection! And here is one smart rocket, shot and forgot to do his dirty deed!
    1. tesser
      tesser 23 October 2019 05: 50
      +7
      Comrade Khrushchev in the chat room.

      Hello, Nikita Sergeevich!
    2. madrobot
      madrobot 23 October 2019 06: 36
      +4
      DZ and KAZ have already been canceled? And if this is your rocket, with a price tag like the whole BK MBT, messes up? Maybe all the same five OBPS with good SLA will be more reliable?
      1. novel66
        novel66 23 October 2019 07: 50
        +3
        against scrap ... lol
        1. Leopold
          Leopold 23 October 2019 08: 26
          +3
          ... there is a reception, if there is more scrap! tongue
          1. novel66
            novel66 23 October 2019 08: 27
            +2
            when this scrap already flies to you on board ... just right
            1. Leopold
              Leopold 23 October 2019 08: 28
              +1
              The main thing to have time to shoot, and then to cover.
              1. novel66
                novel66 23 October 2019 08: 40
                +1
                they are all hypersonic ... you may not have time .. crying
                1. Leopold
                  Leopold 23 October 2019 08: 49
                  +3
                  Hypersonic crowbar? Mdya ... then you can definitely not be in time. belay
                  1. novel66
                    novel66 23 October 2019 10: 29
                    +2
                    But what about ?? the speed of a sub-projectile is 1500, and somewhere they wrote 1800 m / s, which is 5-6 max, hypersound
                    1. Leopold
                      Leopold 23 October 2019 10: 32
                      +3
                      So he does not support her, otherwise he would not fall.
                      1. novel66
                        novel66 23 October 2019 10: 33
                        +1
                        well, not so much he will lose, enough armor
                      2. Leopold
                        Leopold 23 October 2019 10: 40
                        +2
                        Well, you're not in the tank, and neither am I. yes
                      3. novel66
                        novel66 23 October 2019 10: 41
                        +2
                        I feel sorry for our tankers ... but not for our ours!
                      4. Leopold
                        Leopold 23 October 2019 10: 59
                        +2
                        So our armor is impenetrable. There is work to do.
                      5. novel66
                        novel66 23 October 2019 11: 09
                        +1
                        I offer anti-gravity armor - getting into such a shell loses weight, and therefore armor penetration
                      6. Leopold
                        Leopold 23 October 2019 11: 15
                        +2
                        Maybe immediately gravitsapu?
                      7. novel66
                        novel66 23 October 2019 11: 19
                        +2
                        soar over the battlefield? tempting ..
                      8. Leopold
                        Leopold 23 October 2019 11: 25
                        +2
                        And you can overtake the projectile.
                      9. novel66
                        novel66 23 October 2019 11: 33
                        +1
                        and redirect!
                      10. Leopold
                        Leopold 23 October 2019 11: 35
                        +1
                        And not only. You can land an enemy boss directly on your head. Bam! And victory.
                      11. novel66
                        novel66 23 October 2019 11: 37
                        0
                        shit first!
                      12. Leopold
                        Leopold 23 October 2019 11: 38
                        +2
                        What for? He will do it himself.
            2. madrobot
              madrobot 23 October 2019 13: 39
              0
              I can hardly imagine a situation when a "crowbar" flies into the side. An RPG-7 grenade? Yes, easily. And here is a crowbar ... Situations of course are very different, but not to notice a PTO or a tank, it's already difficult. Everything rests on the old network showdown on the topic "lonely tank in an open field."
              1. madrobot
                madrobot 23 October 2019 13: 43
                0
                As I should have thought and imagined such a situation: the attack was choked for various reasons. Sagittarius partly scattered, and part already in the sky. From the platoon, there was only one car left and it was feverishly trying to slip out from under the fire.
                Yes, anything can happen.
              2. novel66
                novel66 23 October 2019 13: 52
                +2
                for some reason, BOPS are loaded into the tank? if they have no use, then why?
      2. PROXOR
        PROXOR 23 October 2019 10: 20
        0
        KAZ is not an option against supersonic missiles. The same Chrysanthemum rocket flies at a speed of 1,2M
        1. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 23 October 2019 22: 56
          +1
          Quote: PROXOR
          KAZ is not an option against supersonic missiles.

          Well, if KAZ even intercepts BOPS, then 1.2M Chrysanthemums modern KAZ will not be too puzzling.
          1. PROXOR
            PROXOR 24 October 2019 09: 45
            0
            It seems to me that BOPS at the end they can intercept. The CHRISANTEM missile maintains its speed all the way.
            1. Saxahorse
              Saxahorse 24 October 2019 21: 15
              0
              Quote: PROXOR
              It seems to me that BOPS at the end they can intercept.

              At what exit? They don’t shoot further 2-3 km of BOPS, it makes no sense. And the speed of the same Chrysanthemum is not much higher than the usual ATGM. Those also do not freeze in the air, the difference of 100 m \ s (30%) does not play a special role.
    3. Professor
      Professor 23 October 2019 08: 36
      +2
      Quote: Igor Ivanov_4
      Of course, the shell is cheaper than the rocket and flies faster and reload faster, but the shell is a fool’s bullet, and the rocket is smart

      The projectile is cheaper if viewed in isolation from the platform from which it will be launched. As a system, a rocket + launcher is cheaper and more efficient, rather than a projectile + barrel and further down the list.
      1. novel66
        novel66 23 October 2019 08: 41
        +2
        rocket tank ?? with vertical pu ?? interesting ...
        1. Leopold
          Leopold 23 October 2019 08: 53
          +2
          Anti-aircraft are allowed vertically, and they will be adapted on the ground. Isn't it all the same where to launch a rocket if target designation is received, say from a drone over the battlefield?
        2. Professor
          Professor 23 October 2019 09: 23
          0
          Quote: novel xnumx
          rocket tank ?? with vertical pu ?? interesting ...

          tank? Why this atavism if ATGM flies on 30 km from any platform?
          1. novel66
            novel66 23 October 2019 10: 41
            +3
            you never know what will shoot there? armor is never superfluous
          2. madrobot
            madrobot 23 October 2019 14: 04
            0
            Z0 km - not too much? 3 km is still normal, but even 5 km is already an inflection. We are not talking about OTRK.
            1. Professor
              Professor 23 October 2019 14: 37
              +3
              Quote: madrobot
              Z0 km - not too much? 3 km is still normal, but even 5 km is already an inflection. We are not talking about OTRK.

              It is 30 and it is ATGM.
              1. madrobot
                madrobot 23 October 2019 15: 44
                0
                Oops, thanks. But this is how long the rocket will fly? The tank is not a shed, it does not stand still. And ATGMs are not hypersonic.
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 23 October 2019 16: 09
                  +2
                  On a GOS missile with scanning IR video. A missile is looking for a tank, even if it is moving. And it hits him almost vertically from above. In the most vulnerable part.
                2. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 23 October 2019 17: 49
                  +1
                  Quote: madrobot
                  But how long will the rocket fly?

                  No need to troll the Israelis !!!!!

                  In general, while this rocket flies for these 30 km, the tank will leave a kilometer with a penny. In the best case, that is, at a speed of 30 km / h. So if this "heavenly slug" is not shot down, then it will be a whole problem for him to find the target.
                  1. madrobot
                    madrobot 23 October 2019 19: 49
                    0
                    In the period from 1987 to 1989, I served in the post of mech-water of the good old T-72. More precisely, in the city of Krnov, Czechoslovakia (then such a country still existed). I can say with full responsibility - on the march, on the concrete road, up to 75 km / h. At the intersection, up to 50 km / h, but it's complicated. Only when there is a deployment from the march. How you can get into the car from a distance of 30 km is a mystery. But I'm not a military man, maybe technology has taken a very long step, but I did not follow.
                    1. Saxahorse
                      Saxahorse 23 October 2019 23: 05
                      0
                      Quote: madrobot
                      I can say with full responsibility - on the march, on the concrete road, up to 75 km / h. At the intersection, up to 50 km / h, but it's complicated. Only when there is a deployment from the march. How you can get into the car from a distance of 30 km is a mystery.

                      Elementary Watson! If you are illuminated from the sky all the time with a laser, then at least 100 km \ h push, it will still hit. Well, if there is a GOS with IR or radio, she herself will see you from above, plus \ minus a kilometer will not help.

                      Moreover, there are also cluster munitions with homing. They generally shoot towards the dust clouds, and they (ammunition) themselves choose who knocks someone :)
                3. Svateev
                  Svateev 23 October 2019 21: 19
                  0
                  Quote: madrobot
                  Oops, thanks.

                  Too shy to ask: where did you learn Hebrew? I don’t understand a damn thing. At what minute about 30km range?
                4. Professor
                  Professor 24 October 2019 07: 08
                  +1
                  Quote: madrobot
                  Oops, thanks. But this is how long the rocket will fly? The tank is not a shed, it does not stand still. And ATGMs are not hypersonic.

                  At an average speed of 200 m / s, the rocket will overcome 30 km in 2.5 minutes. Since the target is attacked from above and from high, the tank cannot go anywhere. He is sentenced.


                  Quote: madrobot
                  In the period from 1987 to 1989, I served in the post of mech-water of the good old T-72. More precisely, in the city of Krnov, Czechoslovakia (then such a country still existed). I can say with full responsibility - on the march, on the concrete road, to 75 km / h. At the intersection to 50 km / h, but it's complicated. Only when there is a deployment from the march. How you can get into the car from a distance of 30 km is a mystery. But I'm not a military man, maybe technology has taken a very long step, but I did not follow.

                  Beat the lead.


                  Quote: Svateev
                  Too shy to ask: where did you learn Hebrew? I don’t understand a damn thing. At what minute about 30km range?

                  https://www.rafael.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Spike-NLOS.pdf
          3. abc_alex
            abc_alex 25 October 2019 13: 44
            0
            Quote: Professor
            Why this atavism if ATGM flies on 30 km from any platform?

            Have you already canceled the horizon? In order not just to shoot, but to hit, you need to aim. To aim, you need to see. And then 5-6 km does not allow the horizon to see.
            1. Professor
              Professor 25 October 2019 18: 16
              +1
              Quote: abc_alex
              Quote: Professor
              Why this atavism if ATGM flies on 30 km from any platform?

              Have you already canceled the horizon? In order not just to shoot, but to hit, you need to aim. To aim, you need to see. And then 5-6 km does not allow the horizon to see.

              NLOS- stands for "out of sight". See above how aiming works.
              1. abc_alex
                abc_alex 26 October 2019 10: 53
                +1
                Quote: Professor
                NLOS- stands for "out of sight". See above how aiming works.


                Professor, you again mislead people. Spike operator does not aim at a distance of 30 km. At the time of the shot, he does not see the target. He sees it already on the route, when the rocket flies closer, or when it rises higher. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that, only this is not a car for the front line. The tank is still a front-line car, and the jeep with Spike is deep in the rear. As a support machine - almost ideal. (Chrysanthemum developers regret that not all of them had Jewish genes wink and therefore the projects of Soviet systems conceived in the 80s, in the 90s were only realized in another country. wink )
                In principle, in the USSR they tried to make rocket tanks. And there was even a completely sane project with
                combined rocket and artillery system. But stalled. The developers say that solely for reasons of low lobbying for the project.
                In principle, and now no one bothers to implement the principle of Spike guidance for caliber tank ATGMs, but how to aim for the horizon if there are none of your own in front? For the Armata project’s tank, they’re thinking about a tethered UAV, this can solve the problem, from a height of 20-30 meters you can already aim at the horizon.
                1. Saxahorse
                  Saxahorse 26 October 2019 20: 52
                  0
                  Quote: abc_alex
                  but how to aim for the horizon, if no one is ahead of you?

                  To solve this problem, the "digital battlefield" was invented. UAVs, attack aircraft, infantry, AWACS radars, anyone noticed the target, and immediately follows the translation into the launch coordinates for the nearest weapon.
                  1. abc_alex
                    abc_alex 27 October 2019 09: 03
                    0
                    Quote: Saxahorse
                    To solve this problem, the "digital battlefield" was invented. UAVs, attack aircraft, infantry, AWACS radars, anyone noticed the target, and immediately follows the translation into the launch coordinates for the nearest weapon.

                    This is true, but this is for systems that have "their own in front", that is, for those in the rear or at least in the 2nd echelon. And the tanks are front-line vehicles, there are no own tanks in front of them.
      2. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 24 October 2019 21: 16
        +1
        Quote: Professor
        As a system, a rocket + launcher is cheaper and more efficient, rather than a projectile + barrel and further down the list.

        You can argue. Only need to be considered in a different order. For example, the barrel + 10000 shells of its resource. And only then compare with PU + 10000 missiles.
        1. Professor
          Professor 25 October 2019 18: 18
          0
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Quote: Professor
          As a system, a rocket + launcher is cheaper and more efficient, rather than a projectile + barrel and further down the list.

          You can argue. Only need to be considered in a different order. For example, the barrel + 10000 shells of its resource. And only then compare with PU + 10000 missiles.

          10 000 shots? But who will let him make so many shots? The tank in battle and 10 shots will not have time to produce. The cost of the tank 5-10 lyamov. Divide the shots into 10 and get a gold shell with a platinum sleeve.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 25 October 2019 21: 30
            0
            Quote: Professor
            The tank in battle and 10 shots do not have time to produce.

            Did you imagine the battle of Prokhorovka? And often such epic battles happen? You better watch videos from Syria. There is one tank, in the hot season, three to four times a day for ammunition returns. Works and works, works and works.
            1. Professor
              Professor 26 October 2019 07: 35
              +1
              Quote: Saxahorse
              Did you imagine the battle of Prokhorovka? And often such epic battles happen?

              Absolutely real fighting events of the last 50 years. The tank on the battlefield is supposed to hold out for 5 minutes.

              Quote: Saxahorse
              You better watch videos from Syria. There is one tank, in the hot season, three to four times a day for ammunition returns. Works and works, works and works.

              I’m throwing you a dozen videos where the Syrian tank does not have time to fire a single shot. Do you have at least one movie where the tank will completely use up at least one ammunition?
              1. abc_alex
                abc_alex 26 October 2019 11: 03
                0
                Quote: Professor
                I’m throwing you a dozen videos where the Syrian tank does not have time to fire a single shot. Do you have at least one movie where the tank will completely use up at least one ammunition?


                Uh ... And will it be a new Syrian tank? Or will it be a Syrian tank, which has been in service for 30 years, past two dozen battles, and received ATGM in battle number 23? And how did you determine that until the moment of defeat, he did not fire a single shot? Do you have an ammunition counter for all Syrian tanks? And another question, but what about a movie with full ammunition consumption, what does it look like? A full-length two-hour movie or series? wink

                Professor, what are you, chesslovo.
                1. Professor
                  Professor 27 October 2019 09: 04
                  0
                  Quote: abc_alex
                  Uh ... And will it be a new Syrian tank? Or will it be a Syrian tank, standing in the ranks of 30 years, past two dozen battles, and in combat number 23 received ATGM? And how did you determine that until the moment of defeat, he did not fire a single shot? Do you have an ammunition counter for all Syrian tanks? And another question, but what about a movie with full ammunition consumption, what does it look like? Full-length two-hour movie or series

                  Let’s the video where the Syrian shoots the entire ammunition.

                  Quote: tesser
                  In the real world of the last 50 years, tanks held on for much longer, and even on several sides, in the case of the Tyrants.

                  How many tanks are in service with the Bundeswehr? And Britov? The Japanese? And you?

                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  Fuuu .. How many years does the war in Syria continue? This is how many times in 5 minutes? And the tanks, which is characteristic, still have not ended.

                  They will end in Syria when you stop supplying them as supplies.
                  1. abc_alex
                    abc_alex 27 October 2019 09: 18
                    0
                    Quote: Professor
                    Let’s the video where the Syrian shoots the entire ammunition.

                    Professor, if you do not understand sarcasm, then I will translate into plain Russian. Attention, concentrate.
                    There can be no such clip. No one will shoot an hour-long video running after a tank across the battlefield and recording every shot. Moreover, it is impossible to prove in principle whether the ammunition in the tank was strong.
                    Also, your videos can’t prove anything, because it’s impossible to even understand, and not just to prove whether the tank shot before the shot.
                    And most importantly, the Syrian tanks for the most part are already old and for the most part have gone through more than one battle. Suppose that in each battle they fired at 10 shots, in total they have already shot more than one ammunition.
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 27 October 2019 09: 27
                      0
                      Quote: abc_alex
                      Professor, if you do not understand sarcasm, then I will translate into plain Russian. Attention, concentrate.
                      There can be no such clip. No one will shoot an hour-long video running after a tank across the battlefield and recording every shot. Moreover, it is impossible to prove in principle whether the ammunition in the tank was strong.

                      Anna News put the camera on the tank and go into battle. We calculate how many shots the tank produces and subtract this number from the ammunition.

                      Quote: abc_alex
                      Also, your videos can’t prove anything, because it’s impossible to even understand, and not just to prove whether the tank shot before the shot.

                      They make it clear how defenseless the tank is.

                      Quote: abc_alex
                      And most importantly, the Syrian tanks for the most part are already old and for the most part have gone through more than one battle. Suppose that in each battle they fired at 10 shots, in total they have already shot more than one ammunition.

                      And most importantly, Russia continues to rebuild the waning Syrian tank fleet.
                      1. abc_alex
                        abc_alex 27 October 2019 09: 57
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        Anna News put the camera on the tank and go into battle. We calculate how many shots the tank produces and subtract this number from the ammunition.

                        And what, right here are timing videos with timing laid out? wink
                        Is the completeness of ammunition confirmed? Is the intensity of the database taken into account? Well, let's not play statistics. Just admit the obvious - not every battle will destroy a tank without firing a single shot. And not in every battle, he fires off all the ammunition. But in their entire "life" tanks make hundreds of shots in dozens of battles. Some even have to change tools.

                        Quote: Professor
                        They make it clear how defenseless the tank is.

                        Did you really talk about that? You talked about the number of shots that an average tank makes on the battlefield until it is hit. And you say that it is negligible. This is what they object to you, and do not convince you of the invulnerability of tanks.

                        Quote: Professor
                        And most importantly, Russia continues to rebuild the waning Syrian tank fleet.

                        And the United States continues to rebuild Israel’s aircraft fleet, does this mean something about the loss of your aircraft? You made a new Merkava by feeding it under 70 tons, does this mean something about the loss of Merkava in battles? Professor, do not pull the owl on the globe. Any equipment in conditions of active use (especially by Arabs) inevitably requires replacement.
                      2. Professor
                        Professor 27 October 2019 13: 45
                        +1
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        But in their entire "life" tanks make hundreds of shots in dozens of battles.

                        For example?

                        Quote: abc_alex
                        Did you really talk about that? You talked about the number of shots that an average tank makes on the battlefield until it is hit. And you say that it is negligible. This is what they object to you, and do not convince you of the invulnerability of tanks.

                        How much on average does a tank manage to fire before it is destroyed?

                        Why today tankers go into battle not with full ammunition?

                        Quote: abc_alex
                        And the United States continues to rebuild Israel’s aircraft fleet, does this mean something about the loss of your aircraft? You made a new Merkava by feeding it under 70 tons, does this mean something about the loss of Merkava in battles? Professor, do not pull the owl on the globe. Any equipment in conditions of active use (especially by Arabs) inevitably requires replacement.

                        Syria today possesses at least some tanks only thanks to the constant supply of Russian free tanks.
              2. tesser
                tesser 26 October 2019 14: 48
                -1
                Quote: Professor
                Absolutely real fighting events of the last 50 years. The tank on the battlefield is supposed to hold out for 5 minutes.

                Sometimes it seems that some tank crewman took his wife away from the Professor. He hates them as a class.

                In the real world of the last 50 years, tanks held on for much longer, and even on several sides, in the case of the Tyrants.

                Quote: Professor
                I’m throwing you a dozen videos where the Syrian tank does not have time to fire a single shot.


                Throw this man.
              3. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 26 October 2019 20: 54
                0
                Quote: Professor
                Absolutely real fighting events of the last 50 years. The tank on the battlefield is supposed to hold out for 5 minutes.

                Fuuu .. How many years does the war in Syria continue? This is how many times in 5 minutes? And the tanks, which is characteristic, still have not ended.
    4. Lopatov
      Lopatov 23 October 2019 13: 48
      +2
      There is such a common misconception as "tanks do not fight with tanks" But you have the opposite. Do you think that tanks only fight tanks?
      Rockets are cool. Probably. But are you ready to plant a dozen guided missiles in a grove in which you would personally plant the ATGM calculation? Just in case, to protect your unit

      Quote: Igor Ivanov_4
      We’ve increased the caliber, be so kind as squaring that increase in mass by the energy necessary to maintain at least the previous speed,

      What for? A low initial is not always a bad thing. Often the opposite is fine.
      When you shoot with high-explosive fragmentation, you have less dispersion in range, and it is easier for you to hit a "horizontal" target such as a trench
      When you shoot projectiles with remote detonation "on the fly" - you again have less dispersion of air bursts in range (the same time error gives a lower "linear" error with decreasing speed) And again, the probability of rupture is higher above the target. And so on.
    5. Ryaruav
      Ryaruav 23 October 2019 19: 58
      +2
      in conditions of large-scale military operations with the use of all types of interference, not every missile reaches the middle of the Dnieper, but the barrel artillery remains the main tactical force of the ground forces
  3. Leopold
    Leopold 23 October 2019 06: 00
    +3
    There was already an experience of joint creation of MBT between the Germans and the Americans. It ended up with the Abrams and Leopard 2. Here, too, cooperation may result in "Leopard 3" and "Leclerc 2". It is hard to believe that they will agree. request
    1. novel66
      novel66 23 October 2019 07: 52
      +1
      Seryoz, hi! hi and it is not necessary that a single tank was born, but common groundwork will be used in "ours"
      1. Leopold
        Leopold 23 October 2019 07: 57
        +2
        And you, Roma hi That is exactly what happened with the XM-1 project, which is US-German. Here, most likely, it will be the same. They’ll look at each other’s new products, and they’ll bother theirs.
        1. novel66
          novel66 23 October 2019 08: 19
          +1
          and it is right!! if only the gun is still 140mm, then this is an occasion for us to think
          1. Leopold
            Leopold 23 October 2019 08: 24
            +3
            So we have our own 152mm. What is there to think then? They still need to overcome the barrier of "uniform standard", but we don't care about it.
            1. novel66
              novel66 23 October 2019 08: 25
              +2
              somewhere, maybe it is, but I just didn’t see it in the armature (can it be, overlooked?)
              1. Leopold
                Leopold 23 October 2019 08: 30
                +3
                Nope! They haven't put it on Armata yet. If 125mm can handle it so far, why bother with a garden? And 152mm in some "objects" have already been tested, but so far postponed.
                1. novel66
                  novel66 23 October 2019 08: 39
                  +1
                  so, it will become obsolete until it arrives! only ahead of schedule !! soldier
                  1. Leopold
                    Leopold 23 October 2019 08: 48
                    +3
                    I don't know, maybe they are improving something so far. And the Germans and the French will definitely not agree. Judge for yourself - both have their own tank school and their own full production cycle. Everyone will "drag the blanket over themselves," the money "at stake" is not small.
  4. andrewkor
    andrewkor 23 October 2019 06: 22
    -2
    These partners will scratch their turnips when a 6 "cannon is stuck on the Armata!
  5. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 23 October 2019 06: 59
    +3
    As some movie hero used to say: “It's all complicated!” ... In addition to the French 140-mm cannon, there are American, Swiss, English, German and even Ukrainian “guns” in the same caliber! he will be impatient and say B ... that is, the question may arise: what a fig to increase the caliber of the gun, if you do not change the engine, armor, create an automatic loader, come up with new options for ammunition, a new CIUS, etc., etc. .P. ... That is, to create a new "innovative" tank, and not just a "modern modification" of Leopard-2, Leclerc ... But, again, the following question arises: Is the "game" worth the candle? And this question may well arise against the "background" of many years of "rejection" in the "west" of the prospects for the further development of MBT! Does Russia have what to answer NATO, without frightening "them" with its Russian "size" (152 mm caliber ...)? I do not know ! Somehow I "heard" that initially a 95-mm tank gun was developed for the T-135 ... (I even read about it: it surpasses the NATO 120-mm cannon, but inferior to the 140-mm cannon ...) ... but this is the statement was in only one article, and in “many” only the 95-mm cannon was mentioned for the T-152 ... I already mentioned the 135-mm cannon on the VO, but the readers unanimously rejected it (rejected the fact of its existence .. .)! But, if you remember the Ukrainian "Bagira", then you can ask: why not really we can not in 140 mm? The Swiss made their 140-mm cannon from the 120-mm German one ... and in Russia there is a great choice! At least "increase" the 125-mm cannon, "reduce" the 152-mm cannon!
  6. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 23 October 2019 07: 08
    +2
    I can’t imagine the work of an autoloader with a unitary munition 1.5 meters long. As well as the work of a loader with a unitary munition weight of more than 30 kg. Further growth in calibers will only increase these numbers. NATO drove itself into a trap without moving to separate loading in the 60 years. Today, when they flooded the whole world with their tanks and their ammunition, this is not so easy.
    1. Graz
      Graz 23 October 2019 07: 37
      +2
      Well, at leklerk it’s like a tape, there probably the length of the shell is not so critical
      1. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs 24 October 2019 08: 48
        0
        Then it is interesting to learn about the effect of the tape loading mechanism on the amount of ammunition.
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 23 October 2019 10: 46
      +3
      Quote: Jurkovs
      I can’t imagine the work of an autoloader with a unitary munition 1.5 meters long.

      And who said that there will be unitary ammunition? belay I won't tell you about the whole of Odessa ... that is, I won't argue for all 140 mm guns, but those guns that I know "use" separate loading ammunition ... that is, the introduction of 140-mm tank guns implies mandatory use of automatic loaders (AZ).
      1. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs 24 October 2019 08: 47
        0
        So after all, the article just talks about unitary ammunition.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Lopatov
      Lopatov 23 October 2019 14: 03
      +2
      Quote: Jurkovs
      I can’t imagine the work of an autoloader with a unitary munition 30 meters long. As well as the work of a loader with a unitary ammunition weight of more than XNUMX kg.

      A-222 "Bereg" Unitaras were almost 1.4 meters long and weighing 50 kopecks, simple Soviet loaders took from fur. stacking and stacked on trays of the automated dispensing system.

      But this is not the most interesting thing. The most interesting thing is that armored vehicles with automatic loading of "large" 155-mm unitars appeared in the early 60s of the last century. The Swedes. Artillerikanonvagn 151
      Here she loads the "clip"
      1. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs 24 October 2019 08: 46
        0
        You misunderstood me. We are talking about tanks. And in the tank, the distance from the breech + one and a half meters of the unit significantly increases the length and weight of the tower.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 24 October 2019 08: 58
          0
          Quote: Jurkovs
          We are talking about tanks.

          So it's easier with tanks. After all, the self-propelled guns and self-propelled coastal guns have a serious limitation - it is not recommended to move the barrel to the "loading position" there, this reduces the zeroing accuracy.
          1. Jurkovs
            Jurkovs 24 October 2019 09: 02
            0
            Have you been to the tank tower? When I was on the T-55, I pulled 100 mm. unitary loader. Pull it out of the box, turn around, put it in the breech and all this in the extremely limited space of the tower.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 24 October 2019 09: 15
              0
              Quote: Jurkovs
              Have you been to the tank tower? When I was on the T-55, I pulled 100 mm. unitaries

              I have been in the tank and self-propelled guns. Therefore, I understand what I mean.

              Quote: Jurkovs
              Pull it out of the box, turn around, put it in the breech and all this in the extremely limited space of the tower.

              What for? Even in the version with the loader, get the shell from the fur stack and transfer it to the rammer tray. No need to go anywhere.

              And it can be even simpler. If the "delivery axis" coincides with the axis of the barrel in its position for loading, then it can be done so that the projectile will be sent directly from the slot of the mechanized stacking conveyor.
              1. Jurkovs
                Jurkovs 25 October 2019 07: 51
                0
                What fur styling, what is the loading axis? What are you talking about? Can you even imagine how the unitaries were located in the tank and in what places were attached? However, we have a pointless argument.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 25 October 2019 09: 22
                  0
                  Quote: Jurkovs
                  What fur styling, what is the loading axis? What are you talking about?

                  About charging systems, including in France

                  Quote: Jurkovs
                  Can you even imagine how the unitaries were located in the tank and in what places were attached?

                  In the conveyor in the feed niche
                  Just not "located" but "located" The loading system of the new tank will most likely be made by the French. Only they have a working loading system at Leclerc at Leopard only at the concept level.


                  Quote: Jurkovs
                  However, we have a pointless argument.

                  It is intended.
                  Indeed, in order to continue it, you must continue to pretend that you do not see the presence of a feed niche at the experienced "Leclerc"
  7. Graz
    Graz 23 October 2019 07: 34
    0
    and what problems let the Franks put 140 on their own, and the Germans on their 130mm
    and let everyone blurt out a tower under his gun
  8. Ros 56
    Ros 56 23 October 2019 08: 54
    0
    Of course, I’m not a tanker, but I’ve been in a tower a long time ago, I was surprised how closely and with difficulty I imagine how it would be possible to move with a shell almost a meter and a half long?
    1. Livonetc
      Livonetc 23 October 2019 10: 34
      +3
      At 140mm just 1.5 meters.
  9. garri-lin
    garri-lin 23 October 2019 09: 06
    +1
    How many problems are due to the build-up of tank capabilities. Which are essentially secondary. Leave the gun as is and add ATGMs in the vertical launchers behind the stern and the problem is solved. More precisely, the battlefield ur. With different warheads.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 23 October 2019 11: 11
      +5
      Quote: garri-lin
      Leave the gun as it is and add ATGM ...

      I agree that even 120/125-mm cannons have not exhausted their capabilities ... Further use of tank guns presupposes "massive" use of guided (adjustable) shells with an "emphasis" on hitting "from the top", incl. active-reactive! Among active-rocket projectiles, hypersonic kinetic projectiles stand out in a separate category. In the development of hypersonic kinetic guided active-rocket projectiles, problems were encountered that have not yet been finally resolved, but they are being solved ... "Self-aiming" tank shells can be distinguished into a separate category.
      1. tesser
        tesser 23 October 2019 12: 33
        0
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        guided (adjustable) projectiles with an "emphasis" on hitting "from the top"

        Making a shell a shell is not rational. He will lose his kinetic energy, for the sake of which they carried such a hefty gun. So anti-tankers do ATGMs.

        To launch ATGMs do not need a gun.

        And the tank is not needed.
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 23 October 2019 13: 32
          +2
          Quote: tesser
          To launch ATGMs do not need a gun.

          And the tank is not needed.

          Let it remain on "your conscience" ... I do not intend to discuss it!
          Quote: tesser
          Making a shell a shell is not rational.

          Why so ? belay South Koreans do! (KSTAM-I (tandem-cumulative; KSTAM-II ("strike-nuclear") ...) Experienced "self-aiming" shells (NATO, USA) can hit armored vehicles with a "shock core" in the side, in the roof ...
          1. tesser
            tesser 23 October 2019 13: 52
            +1
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            I do not intend to discuss this!

            What is there to discuss. This is a fact of fact since the 80s. The gun on the tank, ATGM on BMP. Or even a chariot.
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            South Koreans do it!

            Whatever people do.
        2. garri-lin
          garri-lin 23 October 2019 15: 29
          0
          Milking the launch of an ATGM tank is not needed. But the tank needs ATGM to fight enemy tanks at long distances.
          1. tesser
            tesser 23 October 2019 15: 38
            0
            Quote: garri-lin
            But the tank needs ATGM to fight enemy tanks at long distances.

            Yes. But this ATGM is not necessarily located on the tank itself. And if you really need to - now it’s fashionable to screw all kinds of javelins to the combat modules.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 23 October 2019 15: 43
              0
              Woah. The most sober thought. 120-125 mm caliber optimal for targets on the battlefield. Bunkers, bunkers, machine-gun points, etc., etc. And against the ATGM tanks, it was independent of the caliber of the tank gun. And do not make monsters with an enlarged caliber.
              1. tesser
                tesser 23 October 2019 16: 35
                0
                Quote: garri-lin
                Woah. The most sober thought. 120-125 mm caliber optimal for targets on the battlefield.

                Not so simple.
                I, too, sinned, thought it right that when leaving the "uranium scrap" option, the best option is a low ballistics cannon / breech-loading mortar with a large vertical angle like the Finnish NEMO (it has direct fire, in addition to the mounted one). But people in the thread say that this option is considered suboptimal (and sales confirm this). That for general tasks the medium-caliber cannon of 30-40 mm is better, taking into account all the current bells and whistles on the remote fuse. A large ammunition load is more profitable than the opportunity to get serious.
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 23 October 2019 17: 21
                  +1
                  Uranium scrap is good at close range. This option will never go anywhere. It just becomes non-universal. Remote blasting shells have been in use for several decades. The next stage suggests a projectile with GGE and directed formation of a fragmentation field. So that the maximum number of fragments "sowed" the ground. With an adequate control system, it will be possible to shoot for shelters that are small in height. Hinged fire is not required for the tank.
  10. iouris
    iouris 23 October 2019 11: 43
    +1
    Nothing "international" exists. The reality is transnational companies (TNCs). Situyevina is this: there are armed forces, which means that they must have tanks in service (you cannot do without tanks). Some tanks will be built. The rest of the issues are resolved in the course of a properly organized advertising campaign.
  11. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 23 October 2019 22: 15
    0
    I think that the United States will put an end to this .... when they are puzzled by this issue. The main producer of shells for tanks in case of war is the United States. And it’s important which caliber they choose.
  12. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 23 October 2019 23: 12
    0
    Good article, thanks to the author!

    We are waiting for the intrigue of the season, whether the Germans and the French will be able to agree on both the tank and the caliber. :)
  13. mvg
    mvg 24 October 2019 03: 29
    0
    The article, like the photo, was published several years ago. As in Ukraine, the new is the well-forgotten old. Icon © is skipped only.