From Mango to Lead. Shells in a series and in warehouses


Serial Tanks the Russian army of all modifications are equipped with 125-mm smoothbore guns-launchers and can use a wide range of ammunition for various purposes. A special place in it is occupied by several types of armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells (BOPS). In the near future, arsenals should be replenished with new products of this kind.


Two Mangoes


The main BOPS of our army is currently the product 3BM42 "Mango", used as part of 3VBM17 separate loading shots. The shell was adopted in 1988 and still remains in service. The design used new materials and solutions aimed at increasing the overall power and general characteristics.

3BM42 projectile has a length of 570 mm and a weight of 4,85 kg. Inside the steel body of large elongation is a composite tungsten core of two elements. The initial speed when applying a charge 4ZH63 - 1700 m / s. At a distance of 2 km, a projectile pierces up to 500 mm of homogeneous armor (direct hit) or 230 mm at an angle of 65 °. It provides penetration of multi-layer armored obstacles at different angles in a wide range of ranges.

Product 3BM42 and 3VBM17 shots are fully compatible with all existing versions of automatic weapons / loading mechanisms for 2A46 guns. This BOPS is still the main ammunition of its class and is likely to retain this status for a long time.


Shot with BOPS 3BM42 "Mango"

Recently, "Mango" is often criticized. This shell was developed more than 30 years ago and over the past time could have become obsolete. According to various estimates, the level of armor protection of modern foreign tanks exceeds the capabilities of the 3BM42 shell. For its effective application, it is necessary to reduce firing distances, putting yourself at risk.

However, objective data on the comparison of real tank protection with a real projectile are still missing. Perhaps such tests were simply not carried out. However, this fact does not prevent the emergence of new estimates.

The development of the Mango project continues. Last year, at the Army-2019 exhibition, the Russian concern Techmash first showed the Mango-M shell. A shot with such a projectile is characterized by increased indicators of armor penetration. At a distance of 2 km at an angle of 60 °, 280 mm of armor breaks through.

The Mango-M project was developed with an eye to the international market. Many foreign countries operate the T-72 and T-90 tanks, equipped with 2A46 guns. Operators may be interested in improving the combat qualities of such equipment, and the Mango-M BPS with improved characteristics can solve this problem.

Serial "Pattern"


The other day it became known about the launch of the production of a new BOPS. On January 17, Izvestia announced the availability of a contract for the supply of 3BM44 Lekalo serial shells. The document provides for the delivery of BOPS for several years in the amount of thousands of pieces. Through supplies, the army will replenish the ammunition of combat tanks, and also form stockpiles. The first batch of shells in the amount of 2 thousand pieces will go to the troops before the beginning of autumn. Contractor - NIMI them. Bahireva.


Models of shots for the gun 2A46. The third product on the right is a charge 4ZH63, the second on the right is the 3BM32 Lekalo projectile

According to known data, the Lekalo projectile has a mass of approx. 5 kg and a length of 740 mm. The core is made of a new alloy based on tungsten carbide, providing increased armor penetration. Charge 4ZH63 accelerates the projectile to 1750 m / s. At a distance of 2 km with a direct hit, at least 650 mm of homogeneous armor breaks through. High penetration qualities are maintained in a wide range of contact angles, including with the defeat of combined obstacles.

The 3BM44 projectile differs from older products in increased length, which does not allow its use with AZ / MZ of older types. The upgraded MBT T-72B3 and later modifications of the T-80 or T-90 receive an updated machine with increased styling, after which they can use longer shells.

At the moment, of the entire range of domestic BOPS, adopted for service, the most effective is the product "Lekalo". The launch of mass production and the delivery of thousands of such shells over the course of several years will make it possible to more fully realize the potential for modernizing domestic MBTs. Tanks receive improved fire control, and the new BOPS will successfully complement them.

Prospects for the Lead


The prospects for two shells with the common name Lead remain unclear. A 3VBM22 shot with a 3BM59 Lead-1 shell and a 3VBM23 shot with a 3BM60 Lead-2 BPS was developed. These products are as unified as possible and actually differ only in the type and design of the shells. Two types of shells are based on the older Lead product.

From Mango to Lead. Shells in a series and in warehouses
Shot 3VBM19 with the "Pattern"

BOPS 3BM59 / 60 differ from older products in longer lengths, which is why they are not compatible with all automatic loading machines. The composition of both shots uses a new throwing charge 4Zh96. Initial speed - not less than 1700 m / s. The main difference between the two shells is the core material. Lead-2 is equipped with a tungsten-based carbide core, while depleted uranium is used on Lead-1. BOPS 3BM59 from 2 km to 0 ° penetrates at least 600 mm of homogeneous armor. At an angle of 60 ° - 300 mm BOPS 3BM60 indicators are unknown; according to various estimates, no less than 700-750 mm is punched with a direct hit.

Due to the increased length, two BPSs of the Lead family can only be used by tanks that have undergone the modernization of AZ / MZ. For some time, there was no clarity on the issue of modernizing MBT, and as a result, the future of new ammunition remained uncertain. To date, some of the tanks have received the necessary equipment, but the prospects for 3BM59 / 60 shells remain unknown. At the same time, instead of Lead-2, the Lekalo with similar characteristics comes into service.

The future of shells


In our country, new BOPS with enhanced characteristics have already been created. Promising products with the codes “Vacuum” and “Slate” are capable of piercing at least 900-1000 mm of homogeneous armor, but the known limitations are at the cost of this. New shells are even longer than existing ones, and therefore incompatible even with modernized AZ / MZ of old types. Such ammunition is no longer being developed for 2A46 guns, but for the promising 2A82 gun, for the T-14 tank.


Shots 3BVM22 and 3BVM23 with shells "Lead-1" and "Lead-2" outwardly hardly differ

In general, the emphasis in the field of armored vehicles and weapons is gradually shifting from the development of existing models to the creation of completely new ones. Such trends may affect the fate of some samples, including already developed armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells.

Recently, an order appeared for the supply of Beks of the Lekalo type, designed to increase the combat characteristics of cash MBT. In addition, the industry is working on BOPS for the new 2A82 gun. As a result of this, new questions arise about the prospects of the Lead family, which now risks not being left to the lot. Also, the real export future of the Mango-M shell has not yet been determined.

Obviously, the BOPS of domestic production has a different future. Some products will remain in the army, while others will begin to arrive at warehouses. The third will never be able to get into the troops for one reason or another. However, in general, the situation is optimistic. Domestic tanks of all models will continue to receive new ammunition, each of which will be more effective than the previous ones.
Author:
Photos used:
Russianarms.ru, Vitalykuzmin.net
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67 20 January 2020 05: 38 New
    • 11
    • 5
    +6
    Alas, now the problem of our old MZ and AZ has appeared in all its glory, and without switching to the infamous MZ, it’s impossible to increase the length of new BOPS, and it’s impossible to mean and increase their armor penetration even on old tanks. So, what can we expect the emergence of new projects "modernization" of old cars
    1. Graz 20 January 2020 06: 16 New
      • 6
      • 5
      +1
      In my opinion, everything goes to the fact that it is easier to make a specialized combat vehicle against tanks and only with armor-piercing shots and a cannon tuned only for this, universalism will always lose to specializations. Here you have to choose
      1. svp67 20 January 2020 07: 04 New
        • 16
        • 3
        +13
        Quote: Graz
        universalism will always lose specialization.

        Thanks to the "universal" tanks, the Victory Banner was over the Reichstag. Tank, this is the "universal combat vehicle"
        1. Graz 20 January 2020 07: 12 New
          • 10
          • 4
          +6
          in fact on anti-tank shells we are now losing NATO and seriously, unless of course there hi-ki have embellished their
          1. svp67 20 January 2020 07: 13 New
            • 6
            • 5
            +1
            Quote: Graz
            in fact on anti-tank shells, now we are losing NATO and seriously,

            Are you serious about the account?
          2. Hermit21 20 January 2020 10: 08 New
            • 16
            • 6
            +10
            The fact is that in Russia and in the West there are different methods for assessing armor penetration and armor resistance. There are known cases in Syria when the TOU could not penetrate the forehead of the T-72M1 cast turret, although it should have been according to the specifications, the Ukrainian “Stugna” without any modernization, its armor penetration jumped by 200 mm - it was simply counted according to the Western method. That is, if you also recalculate the armor penetration of Russian anti-tank weapons, it will turn out to be not less, or even more than NATO. And, most likely, NATO considers armor penetration with respect to its own armor resistance, otherwise there would be no fails with TOU. So here, as the daughters of Crimean officers teach us, not everything is so simple
            1. Nehist 20 January 2020 17: 57 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Gg where In there cast forehead seen? There generally combined armor
              1. Hermit21 21 January 2020 07: 38 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well, yes, the T-72M without a combination in the forehead of the tower. But not the point
          3. marmalade 26 January 2020 16: 15 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            not embellished
        2. Alexey RA 20 January 2020 11: 24 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          Quote: svp67

          Thanks to the "universal" tanks, the Victory Banner was over the Reichstag. Tank, this is the "universal combat vehicle"

          In fact, the tank of that war was "imprisoned" for the fight against enemy infantry and other soft targets. The battle with the enemy tanks was supposed to lead the PTA.
          This was directly and unequivocally written in the main order of the BTV - order No. 325.
          Order of the NPO of the USSR No. 325 of October 16, 1942
          “On the combat use of tank and mechanized units and formations”
          (...)
          4. Tanks do not fulfill their main task of destroying enemy infantry, but are distracted by the battle with enemy tanks and artillery. The established practice of opposing our enemy’s tank attacks and getting involved in tank battles is wrong and harmful.
          (...)
          5. When enemy tanks appear on the battlefield, the main battle with them is artillery. Tanks engage in battle with enemy tanks only in the event of a clear superiority of forces and advantageous position.
          (...)
          The corps should not get involved in tank battles with enemy tanks, unless there is a clear superiority over the enemy. In the event of encountering large enemy tank units, the corps detaches anti-tank artillery and part of the tanks against the enemy tanks, the infantry, in turn, puts forward its anti-tank artillery, and the corps, obscured by all these means, bypasses the enemy tanks with its main forces and hits the enemy infantry with the aim of tear it from enemy tanks and paralyze the actions of enemy tanks. The main task of the tank corps is the destruction of enemy infantry.

          Actually, the main goals of the tank are well-said by the BC - in the Second World War it was 3/4 of the OFS / OS.

          Moreover, the "anti-personnel" tanks suffered not only us, but also the Yankees. What is the epic they had with the transition from 75 mm to 76 mm on the "Sherman ... smile
          1. svp67 20 January 2020 16: 51 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            This was directly and unequivocally written in the main order of the BTV - order No. 325.
            Order of the NPO of the USSR No. 325 of October 16, 1942

            Of course, at that moment it became clear that there was no trace of the former superiority in armor protection and the power of our T-34 and KV guns, the German long-barreled 50-mm and 75-mm guns pierced their armor from comparable distances, respectively, the losses increased sharply .
            1. Alexey RA 21 January 2020 10: 47 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: svp67
              Of course, at that moment it was already clear that from the former superiority in armor protection and the power of the guns of our T-34 and KV there was no trace

              Look at the regular T-34 BC for 1941 - the picture is the same there: mostly OFS and a bit of BB. To combat enemy tanks, fighter tanks armed with tank versions of anti-tank missiles were intended.
              1. svp67 21 January 2020 11: 40 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                To combat enemy tanks, fighter tanks armed with tank versions of anti-tank missiles were intended.

                Well, shy to ask what, and most importantly how many were there?
                And most importantly, you can indicate in numbers or at least percent how many armor-piercing shells were included in the ammunition of the linear T-34 \ 76.
                1. Alexey RA 21 January 2020 15: 59 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: svp67
                  Well, shy to ask what, and most importantly how many were there?

                  And the very ones that were developed in 1941. And which were supposed to work together with the T-34 and KV, compensating for their low PT power.
                  Understand that the T-34 and KV were not supposed to act alone, like a finger. Yes, and the T-50, too. Their actions were to be supported by artillery tanks (mobile artillery - solving the problem of the absence of high-speed tractors less than Voroshilovtsi), fighter tanks (mobile PTA - solving the problem of the absence of high-speed tractors PTP larger than Komsomolets) and anti-aircraft tanks. In fact, the linear T-34 and KV were part of the complex - but due to being late with the development of the rest of the machines (only the T-34-57 and the “first pancake” KV-2 managed to do), they were forced to fight at first in splendid isolation. Only in 1943 did their actions become supported by assault and tank destroyers.
                  Quote: svp67
                  And most importantly, you can indicate in numbers or at least percent how many armor-piercing shells were included in the ammunition of the linear T-34 \ 76.

                  For the T-34-76 of the first years of production: the BK - 77 shots, of which 19 BB, 53 RPs and 5 “special” shots (when switching to the F-34, the BC dropped to 71 shots).
                  For the T-34-76 of the release of 1942-1944: BK - 100 rounds, of which 21 are BBs, 75 RPs and 4 sub-caliber.
                  1. svp67 21 January 2020 18: 55 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    For the T-34-76 of the first years of production: the BK - 77 shots, of which 19 BB, 53 RPs and 5 “special” shots (when switching to the F-34, the BC dropped to 71 shots).
                    For the T-34-76 of the release of 1942-1944: BK - 100 rounds, of which 21 are BBs, 75 RPs and 4 sub-caliber.

                    It is quite normal b.k. allowing to hit both armored targets and infantry. And since there are several more infantry and anti-tank targets on the battlefield, and at times more than tank ones.
      2. Yuriy77 20 January 2020 10: 09 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        There is such a combat vehicle - Chrysanthemum-S. The truth does not shoot with crowbars, but with a powerful 9M123 cumulative missile.
      3. garri-lin 20 January 2020 10: 29 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Specialized combat vehicle? Are you talking about Armata?
    2. Operator 20 January 2020 09: 29 New
      • 5
      • 9
      -4
      Penetration can be increased not only due to the length and material of the BPS, but also by increasing the initial speed from 1,8 to 2,2 km / s, after which tungsten will be self-sharpening during penetration with a penetration of 1200-1400 mm homogeneous steel armor.

      To do this, you need a 150-160 mm caliber gun and an active rocket with an ISN (essentially a kinetic missile), but the Bolshoi is still catching the raven.
      1. vadimtt 20 January 2020 14: 53 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        I'm afraid that at the modern level of materials science, the increase in the velocity of the projectile will occur solely due to the resource of the barrel, which is already not fantastic bully
        1. Operator 20 January 2020 17: 16 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          The resource of the barrel of the western smooth-bore guns of the caliber of 120 mm is 800-900 shots, the resource of the barrel of the domestic 125-mm smooth-bore guns is 300-400 shots due to the presence of centering protrusions on the BOPS pallet (old models).
    3. Glory1974 20 January 2020 09: 39 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      to increase the length of new BOPS, and it is impossible to mean and increase their armor penetration already on old tanks

      and if you increase the mass of the shell? During the Second World War, 45 kilogram shells of 152 mm, if they didn’t penetrate the armor, they destroyed the tank.
      1. Narak-zempo 20 January 2020 10: 22 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: glory1974
        and if you increase the mass of the shell? During the Second World War, 45 kilogram shells of 152 mm, if they didn’t penetrate the armor, they destroyed the tank.

        So the length is increased just to increase the mass, but so that the area of ​​interaction of the core with the armor does not increase. This is the most obvious way to increase lateral load.
        And if you offer to return to the caliber blanks, imagine what the gun should be in order to accelerate them to the BPS speed (for comparison, the same ML-20, which you implicitly mentioned, has a blank speed of about 600 m / s).
        1. Glory1974 20 January 2020 13: 33 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          No, of course, caliber blanks are not needed. But can be increased by a centimeter, another caliber of "flying scrap". The projectile will remain sub-caliber, but the mass will increase and the penetration accordingly. The tip can be left as is.
        2. svp67 20 January 2020 16: 55 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          So the length is increased just to increase the mass

          Not entirely true, this is already a "side" effect. So the length is increased to increase flight speed, a longer projectile is more stable in flight.
          1. Narak-zempo 20 January 2020 17: 52 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: svp67
            So the length is increased to increase flight speed

            ??
            1. svp67 20 January 2020 19: 58 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              ??

              Short, relatively finite, but a thin shell loses stability faster.
          2. Bad_gr 21 January 2020 11: 53 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The speed with which a sub-caliber projectile leaves the barrel is approximately the same on ours, and on Western tanks, but our speed (and therefore energy), for some reason, is losing faster.
            Scrap diameter to blame?
            1. svp67 21 January 2020 14: 50 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Bad_gr
              but here our speed (and therefore energy), for some reason, lose faster.

              Not as fast as stability. They begin to “swing” them in flight, whole research works are devoted to this. There is only one conclusion: if you want to have a faster and longer-range projectile, increase its length, but here too we will soon run into materials properties.
              1. Bad_gr 21 January 2020 16: 08 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: svp67
                if you want to have a faster and longer-range projectile, increase its length, but here too we will soon run into material properties.

                Clear. Thanks for the information.
              2. Vladimir_2U 23 January 2020 03: 49 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: svp67
                They begin to "swing" in flight

                You probably confuse with rifled shells, yes there, it is a long problem, because of the precession. Feathers have NO such problem.
                1. svp67 23 January 2020 06: 17 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Feathers have NO such problem.

                  Yes, yes ... it’s not in vain that the same high-speed planes have a large elongation.
                  1. Vladimir_2U 23 January 2020 06: 24 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Namely, does this lengthening increase stability, or do planes rotate? )))
                    1. svp67 23 January 2020 06: 31 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      Namely, does this lengthening increase stability, or do planes rotate? )))

                      That's right, the same is achieved with the projectile, although it rotates ... It is the long projectile that is more stable at high speeds
                      1. Vladimir_2U 23 January 2020 06: 37 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Feathered! They give him a small twist, but incomparable with the traditional rifled one, and with rifled shells the length is limited precisely because of the high rotation speed! He begins to "drive a sting" (precession) and the greater the length, the stronger this phenomenon. Just a reminder.
                      2. svp67 23 January 2020 06: 49 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Feathered!

                        Yes, it is the feathered, shorter projectile that quickly loses stability at high speeds or it needs to increase the plumage, and its size is limited by the diameter of the barrel
    4. VicktorVR 20 January 2020 10: 44 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Kinetic energy is directly dependent on mass and quadratic on speed.
      Those. having doubled the mass of energy, we’ll double the total, and by accelerating the projectile we’ll double the energy by 4 times. So, ceteris paribus, it’s more profitable to build up speed.
      True, there are nuances. For example, on a trajectory, the projectile loses speed, but not mass.
      1. Glory1974 20 January 2020 13: 36 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I agree with you that it is more profitable to increase speed. But probably the limit has been reached, so they increase the mass by lengthening the projectile.
        1. Golovan Jack 20 January 2020 13: 44 New
          • 5
          • 7
          -2
          Quote: glory1974
          I agree with you that it is more profitable to increase speed. But probably the limit is reached

          Speed ​​limit is the speed of light. She has not yet been reached.

          Quote: glory1974
          can be increased by a centimeter - another caliber of "flying scrap". The shell will remain sub-caliber, but the mass will increase and accordingly ...

          ... speed will drop. With the same charge.

          And you can add more gunpowder, more ... and break the gun.

          Some kindergarten request
          1. Glory1974 20 January 2020 14: 11 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Speed ​​limit is the speed of light.

            Scientists say that there is speed and more than the speed of light. repeat
            speed will drop. With the same charge

            the projectile is sub-caliber, the overall caliber will not change, the speed will not fall or will fall slightly.
            Some kindergarten

            Why are elders coming to our nursery group? Go get ready for first grade. stop
            1. Golovan Jack 20 January 2020 14: 16 New
              • 4
              • 8
              -4
              Quote: glory1974
              Scientists say that there is speed and more than the speed of light

              These are British scientists ...

              Quote: glory1974
              the projectile is sub-caliber, the overall caliber will not change, the speed will not fall or will fall slightly

              A heavy bullet flies slower. Did not hear?

              Quote: Golovan Jack
              ... speed will drop. With the same charge

              And what did they teach you only at school, infantry? request
              1. Narak-zempo 20 January 2020 15: 06 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Golovan Jack
                A heavy bullet flies slower. Did not hear?

                In general, this is an interesting question for specialists in internal ballistics. A heavier projectile has a lower speed, but it accelerates more slowly, respectively, is longer in the barrel and is exposed to powder gases. In theory, a greater part of the energy of gases should be transferred to him than to a light one in the same weapon with the same charge. Or not?
                1. Golovan Jack 20 January 2020 15: 18 New
                  • 4
                  • 8
                  -4
                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  A heavier projectile has a lower speed

                  Right.

                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  but it accelerates more slowly, respectively, is longer in the trunk and is affected by powder gases

                  Yes, do not give a damn. Well you already said that as a result -

                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  A heavier projectile has a lower speed

                  laughing
                  1. Narak-zempo 20 January 2020 15: 46 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Golovan Jack
                    Yes, do not give a damn. Well you already said -

                    Quote: Narak-zempo
                    A heavier projectile has a lower speed

                    How much less? The question is whether the muzzle energy of shells of different masses differs with the same charge.
                    In short, you need someone who will clarify for the internal ballistics.
                    1. Foul skeptic 20 January 2020 17: 42 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      A heavy bullet flies slower. Did not hear?

                      The same powder charge will give the heavy pool less initial speed. But (under the condition of the same ballistic coefficient) due to the higher air resistance at the initial stage for a lighter bullet and a high lateral load coefficient of a heavy bullet, a heavy one at a distance will lose less in speed, and at some point it will bypass the light one.
                      The question is whether the muzzle energy of shells of different masses differs with the same charge.

                      On the percent, within the influence of the form (and not just the mass, the coil shells had such a shape, including in order to reduce the area of ​​contact between the projectile and the rifling) on ​​the time the projectile was in the barrel. And no one canceled the law of conservation of energy
                    2. Narak-zempo 20 January 2020 18: 55 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: A vile skeptic
                      And no one canceled the law of conservation of energy

                      We have exactly as much energy as heat is released during the combustion of a propellant. The question is which part of it will be transferred to the projectile and which part will be scattered into space.
                      The shape of the shell is the same - "pencils" of equal diameter, only of different lengths, even if the leading device is the same.
                      The barrel of the tank gun is smooth, so there is no loss of twisting of the projectile.
                      So, in theory, a heavier projectile will accelerate more slowly in the barrel, due to which pressure and temperature will be higher at all stages, and the impact will be longer. Therefore, he seems to have to get more energy. No?
                    3. Foul skeptic 21 January 2020 13: 39 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      No?

                      No. After all, the easiest way to make the impact "longer" - to increase the length of the barrel by several times - shows that the exposure time is inversely dependent on other factors))))
                      F * (t2-t1) = m * (v2-v1)
                      F = P * S,
                      The catch is that starting from a certain value of time t (x), due to P * V = R * T (recall the Mendeleev-Clapeyron equation), P begins to fall.
                      So in our expression, and F begins to fall (nonlinearly, in contrast to time), pulling the speed along with it.

                      Here is the equation for the maximum velocity of a projectile in a barrel. All the variables in it, except m, depend on the propellant, m is the mass of the projectile itself. As you can see, the relationship is inversely proportional. And it does not depend on the time spent. From the time spent, it will depend on how much the projectile will lose in speed after reaching its peak or will not receive if it is not achieved.
                    4. Narak-zempo 21 January 2020 13: 42 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Well, finally, a sane answer.
        2. Glory1974 21 January 2020 09: 03 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Scientists say that there is speed and more than the speed of light

          These are British scientists ..

          Well, why? It is quite normal, including ours.
          A heavy bullet flies slower. Did not hear?

          And what did they teach you only at school, infantry?

          Ah ma, artillery!
          Have you read the article? Increase the length of the shell for what? And to increase the mass!
          What for? Do not believe it, but to increase armor penetration.
    5. Foul skeptic 20 January 2020 18: 14 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Speed ​​limit is the speed of light.

      The limit for gunpowder is 2,2-2,3 km / s, and it is not difficult to reach the limit, but we considered that the resource of the trunks is more important. Therefore, I do not think that a jump should be expected from the current 1,7-1,8 km / s.
  • lucul 20 January 2020 11: 08 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    to increase the length of new BOPS, and it is impossible to mean and increase their armor penetration already on old tanks

    So you all ran into this length of the projectile))))
    They threw you a bait from the training manual, you all chorus it and rub it.
    Increasing the length of the projectile is only ONE of the ways to increase armor penetration. You can increase armor penetration in different ways - both by increasing the initial velocity of the projectile (gunpowder with a higher efficiency) and using a harder core of the projectile (which is what they actually save), with the same gun.
    There are still reserves - the question of price is just ...
  • Nikolaevich I 20 January 2020 06: 23 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Something I'm confused about in this arsenal! It seemed to me that this Mango possesses a tungsten carbide core, and the Pattern was made of tungsten alloy! But this is me from memory ... from the "old memories"! By the way, "tungsten alloy" is a more dense material than "tungsten carbide"! If we continue the theme of armor-piercing shells, then once we experienced a cumulative projectile already "triple cumulative"! Penetration, it was said, he had an awesome! Now, I don’t remember his future fate!
    1. Shimoza 20 January 2020 06: 47 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      In "Mango" absolutely precisely the tungsten alloy - VNZh-90.
      In the "Pattern", by the way, too. He was definitely in the experimental batches. I know because in the years 80-90 he worked where they were made: LMZ im. Karl Liebknecht.
    2. Bad_gr 21 January 2020 12: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      once experienced a cumulative shell as much as "triple cumulative"!

      1. Nikolaevich I 21 January 2020 13: 45 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Yes, it's him! Thank you ... hi
  • Jack O'Neill 20 January 2020 07: 19 New
    • 3
    • 7
    -4
    3BM42
    At a distance 2 km shell penetrates up to 500 mm of homogeneous armor (direct hit) or 230 mm at an angle of 65 °. It provides penetration of multi-layer armored obstacles at different angles in a wide range of ranges.

    Isn't it 450mm?
    And in what sense "direct hit"? That is, if it doesn’t hit, then everything will exactly hit the enemy? And if crooked hitthen what?
    1. Aaleks1974 20 January 2020 08: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      At a right angle?
      1. Jack O'Neill 20 January 2020 09: 18 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        At a right angle?

        Normal, not "direct hit". Or does the author have his own slang?
        1. Glory1974 20 January 2020 09: 32 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Normal, not a direct hit. Or does the author have his own slang?

          May fall at an angle, may ricochet. The author probably war jargon "destroyed by direct hit"
          1. Jack O'Neill 20 January 2020 09: 44 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            The author probably war jargon "destroyed by direct hit"

            I hope so. )
          2. Narak-zempo 20 January 2020 10: 24 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            Quote: glory1974
            can ricochet

            Modern BOPS will not ricochet. More precisely, their rebound angle is more than 80 ° to the normal.
            1. Golovan Jack 20 January 2020 10: 36 New
              • 6
              • 10
              -4
              Quote: Narak-zempo
              they have a rebound angle of more than 80 ° to the normal

              Ahem ... I correctly understood you that BOPS, which arrived at an angle of more than 10 degrees to the armorwill not bounce?
              1. Narak-zempo 20 January 2020 10: 51 New
                • 4
                • 1
                +3
                Quote: Golovan Jack
                Ahem ... I correctly understood you that BOPS, which arrived at an angle of more than 10 degrees to the armorwill not bounce?

                That's right. Given the speed of interaction, the shape of the core and the force necessary to deflect its trajectory - the effect of "biting" occurs at much larger angles to the normal than the caliber blanks.
                1. Golovan Jack 20 January 2020 11: 05 New
                  • 6
                  • 10
                  -4
                  Quote: Narak-zempo
                  Exactly

                  It will not be difficult to give a link to the source? I honestly searched, but could not find. Only about toys, and there are still not 10, but 18 degrees ...
                  1. Narak-zempo 20 January 2020 11: 08 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: Golovan Jack
                    It will not be difficult to give a link to the source? I honestly searched, but could not find. Only about toys, and there are still not 10, but 18 degrees ...

                    Unfortunately, I realized that I will not tell you the source. For a long time I read, it seems, on armor.kiev.ua, but now I could not find it.
                  2. garri-lin 20 January 2020 18: 27 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    On BOPS new tip tricky. He, at angles close to the rebound, as if dodges towards the armor increasing the likelihood of "biting." Data rzznitsya but on average 5 degrees offset.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • smaug78 20 January 2020 09: 51 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Dear Cyril, do not mislead readers after the yellow Izvestia. According to the GRAU index: “Lekalo” - 3БМ42М as part of BPS 3БМ44М. And they buy 3BM42 as part of BPS 3BM44, that is, the usual "Mango".
    And not for several years, but until August 30, 2020.
  • Narak-zempo 20 January 2020 10: 00 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    projectile pierces up to 500 mm of homogeneous armor (direct hit)

    It’s as if he can break through something with an “indirect hit”, i.e. on miss laughing
    It’s correct to say “normal”, which means meeting the projectile with the armor at right angles.
  • garri-lin 20 January 2020 10: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    MZ / AZ for land mines and cumulus. And for long-lengths, the infuriated BK for 5-8 shots and the feed manipulator to the charging line. The combined solution. But doable. "Customers" simply have no desire.
    1. Passing 21 January 2020 17: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: garri-lin
      "Customers" simply have no desire.

      Maybe there is no technical possibility? A niche needs to be reserved, and this is a weight of several tons. And reserves for permissible weight are almost exhausted. So the T-90 has a mass of 46,5 tons, and the latest version of the T-90AM has 48 tons. Those. could afford only an additional 1,5 tons.
      1. garri-lin 21 January 2020 18: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, my statement was purely optional. Not BOPS alone. I will say more. In Russian tanks, BOPS is third-rate. If you take the most massive tank, then I see three necessary improvements. 1. DUM on a tower with good optics. 2. KAZ with the solution of the problem of the funnel of the dead zone from above. 3. To remake a regular TUR rocket into a koleby. And the range is greater than that of BOPS and the flexibility of use is higher. Namely, BOPS is a temporary measure.
        1. Passing 21 January 2020 18: 16 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          KAZ and DUM are too expensive things, they will never be put on a junk like the t-72, but the new TUR-mantle compatible with the entire line of tanks looks interesting. It is strange that they do not conduct such work, apparently there are some pitfalls.
          1. garri-lin 21 January 2020 18: 37 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            DUM has long ceased to be expensive. Even with good optics. With KAZ is difficult. It is really not cheap but vitality will add a lot. In the same Syria, it was already possible to run serial with KAZ. It is unclear why they are pulling. The TOUR against a strong opponent is a half-hearted decision. A strong opponent will have KAZ from such attacks. For a TUR mass tank, the ringlets should be an inexpensive modification of the existing one. To fight with a strong and equipped opponent, TUR needs a complex and expensive one. To hit far. I punched a lot. Overcame KAZ. And much more. You won’t start this through the trunk. It will be something akin to RCC only less and with its own specifics. So it’s not worth making a new TUR as a cover for the future and with the expectation of new tanks. Inexpensive to upgrade the old need.
  • Ingvar 72 20 January 2020 12: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    He drew attention to the interesting arrangement of gunpowder in the shells. Someone explain why on top small macaroni, and below the spaghetti? hi
    1. garri-lin 20 January 2020 13: 26 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      It seems that they regulate the increase in the burning rate of gunpowder.
      1. Ingvar 72 20 January 2020 15: 07 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        But the powder is different in composition, or is only the fraction different?
        1. garri-lin 20 January 2020 15: 09 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          But I don’t know this.
    2. Foul skeptic 20 January 2020 15: 18 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5


      If you look at the figure, you can see that the burning of "macaroni" is more intense, and the "spaghetti" more evenly. Small macaroni from above compensate for the pressure drop in the barrel channel due to the movement of the projectile along this channel (Boyle-Mariotte law), contributing to a further increase in the developed speed.
      1. Ingvar 72 20 January 2020 15: 20 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Thank you so much! You aren’t so mean! wassat drinks
  • 5-9
    5-9 20 January 2020 14: 04 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    As I understand, we and NATO have different methods for calculating armor penetration, we have stricter (75% of the received fragments must be behind an armored barrier, NATO has 50%), so a simple recalculation of their methodology will give about +20% ... based from this, Soviet and Russian shells do not look so backward.
    Again, shells even from one production batch give a dispersion in PS of 10%, and a specific shell with a conventional 600 mm in RHA can penetrate one specific PSU with a conventional 620 mm in RHA, but not penetrate another with a conventional 580 mm in RHA, because they are all combined, inclined and this RHA is a convention ... plus what happens to the tank and the electronics when it flew into it and didn’t even break through the crowbar at 1,5-1,6 km / s - it’s really unknown.
  • pogis 20 January 2020 17: 48 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    On "Courage" this topic was sorted by shelves
    http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1988&p=33
    But I’m interested in something else, well, I’m sitting in the abrash clapping a mango in the forehead, but I didn’t break it, cheers! But will I, the crew and Abrash be combat-ready after such a break? Submarines, ships and other vehicles after such a blow sharply lose their combat effectiveness, some even drown or burn out.
    1. Pavel57 21 January 2020 02: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Will the high-explosive shell Abrams survive?
  • Nehist 20 January 2020 17: 54 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Dear author !!! Lyapov in the article a carriage and a small cart !!! Be careful! This also applies to the Editors!
  • pogis 20 January 2020 18: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Nehist
    Dear author !!! Lyapov in the article a carriage and a small cart !!! Be careful! This also applies to the Editors!

    Edit the post.
  • smaug78 20 January 2020 19: 36 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: pogis
    Submarines, ships

    After what such a blow? IMHO a bad example. Yes, it is unlikely that from one hit something serious threatens the crew. Electronics - most likely, yes
  • cat Rusich 20 January 2020 23: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Today, looking into the past, I can say - the T-90 had to be done (the T-72 should be modernized in other words) under BOPS Vacuum and Stylus. Yes, gradually replace the T-72 with the T-90, it is expensive and dreary to replace the entire fleet of tanks, but otherwise it would be possible to leave the T-34 in service. You can do it more economically: place a bet on the Chrysanthemum ATGM, on each platoon of tanks one “Chrysanthemum” ATGM (for fighting enemy tanks).
  • smaug78 21 January 2020 08: 23 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Pavel57
    Will the high-explosive shell Abrams survive?

    It depends on what caliber. However, like any tank, including ours.
    1. Pavel57 21 January 2020 11: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It depends on what caliber.

      125mm.
  • Sotnik77s 21 January 2020 16: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    until the actual hostilities show the use of all these shells, you can guess for how long
  • smaug78 21 January 2020 16: 50 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Pavel57
    It depends on what caliber.

    125mm.

    our Ministry of Defense believes that our tank will be disabled. Thinking American too.
    1. Passing 21 January 2020 18: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: smaug78
      Ankh will be disabled

      If everything is so simple, planted a land mine in silhouette, and incapacitated, why then BOPS, their endless improvement? IMHO, the only chance to disable the tank, with a land mine, is to get into the roof of the tower in the area of ​​the sight, and this is an unlikely event.
      1. garri-lin 21 January 2020 20: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Not certainly in that way. A good land mine projection with a high probability of damage to the gun barrel. Even a slight deformation will make aiming impossible. This is already a good result on the battlefield.
        1. 52
          52 22 January 2020 07: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Both yes and no - it depends on the location of the hit. But optics and out-of-pocket definitely go awry. Do not forget that a modern tank must survive the shock wave from nuclear weapons, and at the same time maintain combat effectiveness.
          1. garri-lin 22 January 2020 08: 14 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, the frontal projection of the tank is about 3,5 by 3 meters. The trunk is in the center. Consequently, the explosion will be no more than 1,5 meters from the trunk. The impact will be stronger than with a remote nuclear explosion. Another interesting. Will the OMS of the tank without human intervention be able to level the aiming errors caused by shell contusion of the gun and sights.
            1. Pavel57 22 January 2020 13: 32 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The Americans from the captured T-72 fired on M1, the result was depressing - a high-explosive shell disabled M1.
              1. garri-lin 22 January 2020 13: 34 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                If this is not a fake, I would like to know what specifically was damaged in M1. And how many times and by what forces the repair was made.
      2. smaug78 22 January 2020 15: 56 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Contusion of the crew, incapacitation of mechanisms .. And in general, argue with the Ministry of Defense ...
      3. smaug78 22 January 2020 16: 28 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        That's right, let's make fun of the howitzer on tanks, especially since there are such calibers ...
  • Zabvo 22 January 2020 20: 39 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    In fact, the Russian Federation does not have normal shells and will not be there for a very long time. As well as normal tanks.
  • Romario_Argo 20 February 2020 11: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    everything in our complex
    but if in short
    that's all through one place
    Tanks will simply fire enemy tanks on themselves
    (already written about carbides - which many ignore)
    But anti-tank calculations will be ATGM, BMP-3
    (which incidentally digs in like tanks belay )
    BM Chrysanthemum, Mi-28, Ka-52, Mi-35 helicopters, attack aircraft and bombers Su-25, Su-34,
    MLRS Grad, Tornado, Hurricane incl. remote mining
    Self-propelled guns Msta, Carnation, Acacia - from closed positions.
    And all this Miracle under the conduction of ACS Foundation + satellite control center and center of the National Defense
    * if even shorter, then read the highlighted in black laughing