"Lekalo" instead of "Mango": the Ministry of Defense began the purchase of new tank shells

"Lekalo" instead of "Mango": the Ministry of Defense began the purchase of new tank shells

Russian Tanks will receive new armor-piercing ammunition. According to Izvestia, with reference to sources in the Ministry of Defense, the Russian military department this year began to purchase the latest armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles 3BM44 Lekalo.


According to available information, the purchase of ammunition is designed for several years. Details of the contract were not disclosed, however, it is known that new shells will arrive not only to equip tanks entering the troops, but also to form stockpiles.

The new armor-piercing projectile 3BM44 Lekalo projectile is designed for D-81 family guns mounted on all Russian tanks in service: T-72 of various modifications, T-80 and T-90. In the arsenal of tanks, “Lekalo” will replace the fledged 3-BMM42 “Mango” firing projectile developed in the Soviet Union. Compared to Mango, Lekalo uses a new high-strength tungsten alloy core and an elongated, more powerful charge of gunpowder.

The lead developer and manufacturer of the new projectile - the Bakhirev NIMI - has already prepared the first contract with its co-contractors for the final assembly of 2 thousand new ammunition. Delivery must be completed by August 30, 2020.

The Lekalo is suitable for any 125 mm gun of all the tanks in service today. And among such universal ammunition "Lekalo" out of competition. If its predecessor - the Mango shell - pierces 520 mm of solid armor from a distance of 2 km, then for a new sample the figure is 650 mm. This is enough to defeat the American M1A2 Abrams modern modifications

- said military expert Alexei Khlopotov.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech 18 January 2020 12: 40 New
    • 20
    • 1
    +19
    A truncated article ... more details here ...
    https://politexpert.net/180973-armiya-rf-nachala-poluchat-noveishie-tankovye-snaryady-lekalo
    1. rich 18 January 2020 15: 07 New
      • 10
      • 2
      +8
      Russian tanks will receive new armor-piercing ammunition

      I will allow myself to rephrase Comrade Antivirus - “This is another spoon in a barrel of NATO armored vehicles” smile
      1. Shurik70 18 January 2020 18: 07 New
        • 4
        • 16
        -12
        And at what distance does this “Pattern” hit?
        The Americans in Iraq shot Hussein's tanks from a distance at which they could not respond.
        If all the same 2 km as the "Mango", then it is of little use. Unless from an ambush.
        1. Shuttle 18 January 2020 18: 23 New
          • 19
          • 3
          +16
          Quote: Shurik70
          And at what distance does this “Pattern” hit?
          The Americans in Iraq shot Hussein's tanks from a distance at which they could not respond.
          If all the same 2 km as the "Mango", then it is of little use. Unless from an ambush.

          Excuse me, but which one do you need? 20 km? At the abrashka, too, excuse me, not tomahawks fly out of the trunk, and not TOW. Although the latter "also" does not apply. Since this country has a bird-kilometer "Reflex", but the cradle of democracy does not.
          About Iraq. There, most of the tanks were bitten by warthogs. Abrams fired mostly at abandoned positions.
          1. Shurik70 18 January 2020 19: 05 New
            • 3
            • 20
            -17
            https://warspot.ru/5427-tankovoe-poboische-v-pustyne
            This is where the tank battle "head-to-head" of 800 tanks and 600 infantry fighting vehicles (USA) against 220 tanks (Iraq) is described. The battle lasted 18 hours, the Iraqis lost more than half of the equipment and retreated.
            The Americans did not suffer losses in that battle.
            The reason is that the Americans fired from distances inaccessible to Iraqis.
            1. poquello 18 January 2020 20: 38 New
              • 15
              • 2
              +13
              Quote: Shurik70
              https://warspot.ru/5427-tankovoe-poboische-v-pustyne
              This is where the tank battle "head-to-head" of 800 tanks and 600 infantry fighting vehicles (USA) against 220 tanks (Iraq) is described. The battle lasted 18 hours, the Iraqis lost more than half of the equipment and retreated.
              The Americans did not suffer losses in that battle.
              The reason is that the Americans fired from distances inaccessible to Iraqis.

              please tell the author that you need to be friends with your head, well, or smoke about the undeclared US losses,
              "head to head"))))))))))))))))))))
            2. Alf
              Alf 18 January 2020 22: 16 New
              • 14
              • 0
              +14
              Quote: Shurik70
              This is where the tank battle "head-to-head" of 800 tanks and 600 infantry fighting vehicles (USA) against 220 tanks (Iraq) is described.

              Where there Prokhorovka ..
            3. Omskgasmyas 19 January 2020 06: 07 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              This is not an article, but an agitation. In their text, floods with mud and sandstorms simultaneously interfere with the offensive.
              I can add that sometimes the Iraqis were shot: BMF Calolitsy were shot with 20-mm shells from a distance of 1,5-2 km of BMP-1 Iraqis. Let me remind you that the Grom recoilless gun on the BMP-1 had a maximum firing range of 1300 m. Problems with the mismatch in the quality of weapons of the Iraqis against Kalokitsy were widespread: the Chinese clone T-55 against Abrams? This is not even funny.
              1. Technical engineer 19 January 2020 17: 55 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                With the latest Bradley shot BMP-1 sixties release and won. What can I say cool. It’s a pity they didn’t meet Renault FT-17, they could have defeated him))))) And the M16 rifle is better than Berdanka)
      2. Grandson of Veteran 18 January 2020 23: 38 New
        • 3
        • 5
        -2
        How are you sick of it, s. Evaluate the news adequately, and not on the principle of "we will tear all."
        Oh, did filters appear on topwar? I didn’t go for about 6 years, I will never come again.
    2. Private-K 19 January 2020 10: 28 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The contract value is 51,5 million rubles.

      25750 400 rub. or approx. XNUMX dollars apiece. Somehow, not enough. Have you missed a toe somewhere? ..
  2. Ros 56 18 January 2020 12: 46 New
    • 10
    • 4
    +6
    Begin to prepare?
    1. figwam 18 January 2020 12: 52 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Apparently yes ...
      1. Andrzej k 18 January 2020 13: 15 New
        • 13
        • 1
        +12
        I hope not, and this is just a normal change. I wish all of this to you and us.

        2000 is more than enough - even when the AZ and MZ T-72B3M, T-90, T-80 are half full of new shells, 150 are enough. And they also have to go to the warehouses.
        1. Andrzej k 18 January 2020 14: 58 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          I apologize for any translation errors. Must be:

          2000 pieces is very small, even if the AZ and MZ T-72B3M, T-90, T-80 are half full of new shells, barely enough for 150 tanks, and they also go to warehouses.
          But this is only the beginning of orders
    2. Observer2014 18 January 2020 13: 40 New
      • 17
      • 15
      +2
      Quote: Ros 56
      Begin to prepare?

      To what? Give the Muscovites a load on the Muscovite’s map. For digging trenches around Moscow laughing Let them stand up for themselves laughing It will begin now. I’m waiting. In Russia, unlike Moscow, these preparations do not scare .. We are always ready
      1. Jager 20 January 2020 10: 01 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And you probably live very far from Moscow. And "scared" there of 13 million, God forbid 1%. The rest are plowing.
    3. Piramidon 18 January 2020 15: 32 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Quote: Ros 56
      Begin to prepare?

      Why are we starting? Always prepared, since the time of Peter the Great.
  3. bessmertniy 18 January 2020 12: 47 New
    • 15
    • 7
    +8
    It's nice that there is a good shell for hunting "Abrams"! winked
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Maki Avellevich 18 January 2020 13: 14 New
        • 10
        • 6
        +4
        Quote: GB-M
        Quote: bessmertniy
        It's nice that there is a good shell for hunting "Abrams"!

        And Merkava ..

        where to meet and why?
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Maki Avellevich 18 January 2020 13: 56 New
            • 9
            • 1
            +8
            Quote: GB-M
            Well, for the Soviet tankers, for ours in short ..

            For ours! drinks
            By the way, he served in the reserve intelligence of the tank brigade. So who knows.
            By age, it’s still very big.
            hi
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. gmb
                gmb 18 January 2020 15: 58 New
                • 3
                • 3
                0
                to the Golan only by bus,
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. gmb
                    gmb 18 January 2020 16: 49 New
                    • 1
                    • 7
                    -6
                    Kill, therefore, on the bus and only a tourist
      2. Uncle Izya 18 January 2020 13: 37 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        More likely leopards and leclerk NATO NATO will not climb
    2. voyaka uh 18 January 2020 13: 25 New
      • 26
      • 14
      +12
      He definitely won’t break Abrams’ forehead. Tungsten Alloy Punch Uranium Sandwich?
      The forehead of Merkava’s corps is likely.
      1. Uncle Izya 18 January 2020 13: 39 New
        • 14
        • 3
        +11
        They will understand from a kilometer that they will break through a hill of forest
        1. aws4 19 January 2020 06: 18 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          no .. doesn’t take this shell for 1000 meters and 800 mm of armor
          1. Uncle Izya 19 January 2020 19: 56 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I’m not a specialist. Well, we can assume that if from 2000 km he breaks through 650 mm, maybe more who will write the truth?
      2. Observer2014 18 January 2020 13: 51 New
        • 6
        • 6
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        He definitely won’t break Abrams’ forehead. Tungsten Alloy Punch Uranium Sandwich?
        The forehead of Merkava’s corps is likely.

        yes .Yes. The Abrams lover’s sandwich is still a nut. Does your colleague don’t think that the Abrams tank destroyer resembles more than a tank?
        1. Nehist 18 January 2020 15: 09 New
          • 7
          • 1
          +6
          So Abrams and design for fighting tanks. So in part you're right, this is more of a tank destroyer than a tank
      3. lucul 18 January 2020 14: 00 New
        • 10
        • 5
        +5
        He definitely won’t break Abrams’ forehead.

        Lekalo breaks through 650mm of armor with 2m, with 000m it is likely to be 1000mm.
        Given that Abrasha has only the latest versions of Sep v.3 (2017), they have frontal turret armor of 900mm, and previous versions of 650mm and lower. That is all very, very good ....
        1. aws4 19 January 2020 06: 19 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          nooooo nailed 1000m less than 800mm
        2. Vol4ara 19 January 2020 10: 18 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Quote: lucul
          He definitely won’t break Abrams’ forehead.

          Lekalo breaks through 650mm of armor with 2m, with 000m it is likely to be 1000mm.
          Given that Abrasha has only the latest versions of Sep v.3 (2017), they have frontal turret armor of 900mm, and previous versions of 650mm and lower. That is all very, very good ....

          900mm reduced armor?
      4. Nikolaevich I 18 January 2020 15: 08 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        There is a more "old" BPS "Lead" with a depleted uranium core ... the armor penetration is about the same as that of the Lekal. As for the “uranium” armor of “Abrams”, I somehow met an article stating that the data on the resistance of such armor given in the open foreign press are underestimated ... Unfortunately, I don’t remember the details that I referred to the author ... it seems like "experiments" were conducted to determine the resistance of the armor ... (like, after studying the data on the composition of the "uranium" armor, such armor was "reproduced" and it was tested ...)
      5. Sars 18 January 2020 16: 45 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Ricochet from the hull to the turret tower. I heard that even high-explosive tower Abram tears off.
      6. neri73-r 18 January 2020 19: 11 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: voyaka uh
        He definitely won’t break Abrams’ forehead. Tungsten Alloy Punch Uranium Sandwich?
        The forehead of Merkava’s corps is likely.

        It may not break, or it may be driven into the lure, but from the blow everything will crumble there.
      7. Jager 20 January 2020 10: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Uranium is hung separately and in certain modifications.
    3. NEXUS 18 January 2020 13: 53 New
      • 2
      • 8
      -6
      Quote: bessmertniy
      It's nice that there is a good shell for hunting "Abrams"! winked

      Here is a video about the new BOPS and the German new 140 mm gun. Pay attention to the scrap that was made under it.

      And I think that it’s time to talk about returning to the idea of ​​a 152 mm gun on Armata.
      1. Saxahorse 18 January 2020 22: 32 New
        • 0
        • 7
        -7
        Quote: NEXUS
        And I think that it’s time to talk about returning to the idea of ​​a 152 mm gun on Armata.

        Better yet, throw this Armata into metal and launch the T-95 or early analogues from Kharkov, then still Soviet. A bunch of time and money was thrown into the air with this T-15. Initially, the car had no serious advantages.
        1. poquello 19 January 2020 02: 19 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Quote: NEXUS
          And I think that it’s time to talk about returning to the idea of ​​a 152 mm gun on Armata.

          Better yet, throw this Armata into metal and launch the T-95 or early analogues from Kharkov, then still Soviet. A bunch of time and money was thrown into the air with this T-15. Initially, the car had no serious advantages.

          it's the best car in the world, minus one - it's expensive
      2. poquello 19 January 2020 03: 11 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: NEXUS
        Here's the video

        incomprehensible drooling on a tank with a German gun that has not yet been made, but you still need to carry it, point it, etc., is it worth watching such a video? Spent 7 minutes in vain
        1. NEXUS 19 January 2020 04: 14 New
          • 4
          • 4
          0
          Quote: poquello
          incomprehensible drooling on a tank with a German gun that has not yet been made, but you still need to carry it, point it, etc., is it worth watching such a video? Spent 7 minutes in vain

          So Armata is essentially not there yet. At the expense of drooling ... the top of idiocy is to assume that we are the smartest and most armed. This approach in the 41st cost us many millions of lives. But what’s for you? You don’t understand what I put this video for ... you spent 7 minutes of your life not understanding anything and writing about what they did not do there, will not guide and will not build .
          1. poquello 19 January 2020 17: 10 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Quote: NEXUS
            So Armata is essentially not there yet.

            Is there a Crimean bridge?
            1. Trigger-Happy 20 January 2020 13: 58 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: poquello
              Is there a Crimean bridge?

              Now, when he was gone, in Crimea it was possible to relax without service, but cheaply, but now he is in Crimea you can relax without service and expensive, but you don’t want to! ...
              1. poquello 20 January 2020 19: 04 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Trigger-Happy
                Quote: poquello
                Is there a Crimean bridge?

                Now, when he was gone, in Crimea it was possible to relax without service, but cheaply, but now he is in Crimea you can relax without service and expensive, but you don’t want to! ...

                gee gee, I do not want to, but it rides, and the faster it rides - the more I want
      3. Jager 20 January 2020 10: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The Germans for another 20-30 years at least extended the life of Leopard-2. Why, tell yourself or think of it yourself?
    4. aws4 19 January 2020 06: 15 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      from an ambush to the side, yes, but this projectile doesn’t take abrams or leo from 2x or even from 1000 m into the forehead .. read the topic yourself understand))))
  4. Ratmir_Ryazan 18 January 2020 12: 47 New
    • 29
    • 11
    +18
    3BM44 "Pattern" is rather weak.

    Modern modifications of Abrams have a tower protection from BOPS - 900 mm, and the hull - 700 mm.

    In the frontal projection Abrams BOPS 3BM44 "Pattern" does not penetrate. This is bad.

    Even worse, they tell us that this is enough to destroy all modern tanks.
    1. silver_roman 18 January 2020 12: 56 New
      • 33
      • 6
      +27
      650mm penetration from a distance of 2 km. If the distance is 1 km, the penetration will be much higher. Nobody would carry out the replacement of shells, especially in warehouses, if the shells did not meet the requirements for defeating the potential enemy.
      But I agree that the penetration reserve is almost exhausted. Unfortunately, in modern MBTs that are in service with the Russian Federation, the design of the automatic loader and the dimensions of the tower do not allow the creation of shells with even greater penetration.
      Separate loading itself creates a lot of questions.
      Modern NATO shells have a much longer projectile than domestic ones. This, in turn, increases the speed of the projectile and, as a result, its penetration. On armature, this is all taken into account.
      And it’s also worth considering such a point that, as a rule, ours always occupy the performance characteristics, and Westerners overestimate. How many times have I heard how RPG 7 took both Abrams and the challengers with their much-praised Chopham armor.
      1. atalef 18 January 2020 13: 04 New
        • 10
        • 24
        -14
        Quote: silver_roman
        650mm penetration from a distance of 2 km. If the distance is 1 km, the penetration will be much higher

        and if at point blank range? Well this and two Abrams can penetrate repeat
        Quote: silver_roman
        On armature, this is all taken into account.

        what is taken into account? Will it be possible to charge any ammunition in the automatic loader?
        1. Uncle Izya 18 January 2020 13: 40 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Here are the experts, how many probably probably the designer
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. silver_roman 18 January 2020 14: 08 New
          • 12
          • 2
          +10
          and if at point blank range? Well this and two Abrams can penetrate

          do not write nonsense. Or do you write to write, but the paper will endure everything?
          Or maybe you want to argue with the obvious facts that at a distance of 2 km the penetration of a projectile is lower than at a distance of 1 km?
          There are formulas for the ratio of distance to penetration. Go ahead, look, make sure. Can you argue with physics or is Jewish physics different from traditional?
          Quote: atalef
          what is taken into account? Will it be possible to charge any ammunition in the automatic loader?

          Yes, 152mm from the revenge, it will be possible to shoot even with an iskander. rate of fire 10 shots per second.
          In armata, AZ is capable of holding shells of a size larger than that allowed for AZ from T-72, etc.
          What is not clear?
          1. Ratmir_Ryazan 19 January 2020 00: 30 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            do not write nonsense. Or do you write to write, but the paper will endure everything?
            Or maybe you want to argue with the obvious facts that at a distance of 2 km the penetration of a projectile is lower than at a distance of 1 km?


            You do not understand what they wrote to you.

            Nobody will let you in to Abrams at a distance of 1 km, since their BPS penetrate about 2 mm of armor for the same 900 km.
            1. poquello 19 January 2020 02: 21 New
              • 2
              • 3
              -1
              Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
              Nobody will let you in to Abrams at a distance of 1 km, since their BPS penetrate about 2 mm of armor for the same 900 km.

              pancake! and they don’t burn at all! )))))))))))))))))
              1. Ratmir_Ryazan 19 January 2020 15: 26 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                pancake! and they don’t burn at all! )))))))))))))))))


                What are you talking about? Do not litter the tape of a serious publication with silly comments.

                For you, the “gifted” and the merry fellow, I’ll explain once again: the Russian T-72B3 / T-90 can hit Abrams only in the side or stern projection, and Abrams, in turn, will flash our tanks head-on from a distance of 2 km.

                Well, try to guess the result of the battle.

                And it will be like on the Kursk Bulge where Tigers and Panthers acted in large numbers against our T-34s - for every wrecked Abrams - dozens of destroyed T-72B3 / T-90 !!!
                1. Golovan Jack 19 January 2020 15: 56 New
                  • 8
                  • 5
                  +3
                  Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                  And it will be like on the Kursk

                  Excuse me, but where exactly, on what kind of theater are you planning to organize this "arc", where the Abrams will fight against the T72B3?

                  For some reason, it seems to me that such a “war” comes from the field of unscientific fiction ...
                  1. poquello 19 January 2020 17: 03 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: Golovan Jack
                    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                    And it will be like on the Kursk

                    Excuse me, but where exactly, on what kind of theater are you planning to organize this "arc", where the Abrams will fight against the T72B3?

                    For some reason, it seems to me that such a “war” comes from the field of unscientific fiction ...

                    Yes, everything is worse there, a person does not consider the angle of entry, dynamics, but claims to be true, byad
                  2. Ratmir_Ryazan 20 January 2020 18: 59 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Sorry, but where exactly, on what kind of theater are you planning to organize this "arc"


                    The point is not in the "arc", but in the fact that our modern tanks are inferior to ALL NATO tanks in the penetration of shells.

                    For some reason, it seems to me that such a “war” comes from the field of unscientific fiction ...


                    The collapse of the USSR and local conflicts along its perimeter and the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Libya and other countries seemed fantastic in the 80s.

                    And just in Iraq, our T-72 confronted the Abrams. The result is sad, they could not even show the slightest resistance.
                    1. Sergey10789 20 January 2020 20: 11 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      In Iraq, the T-72M fought, which is like the T-72A (model 1979)., The current is a little worse!) And, if my memory serves me, the tower of the Iraqi t-72m is cast monolithic!)))) And they have a shell It was like 3vbm-7, which in the USSR was withdrawn from service due to its poor characteristics. This, you know, is like a duel between an average German tank of the beginning of World War II and an average English / Soviet / American tank of the late 40s. And then proudly give out an “expert” opinion that “yes. German tanks break through tanks of the late 40s both in the tail and mane, but German tanks cannot penetrate them! Yes (trouble! (" "
                2. poquello 19 January 2020 17: 00 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                  The Russian T-72B3 / T-90 will be able to hit Abrams only in the side or aft projection, and Abrams, in turn, will flash our tanks head-on from a distance of 2 km.

                  here
                  Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                  Do not litter the tape of a serious publication with silly comments.

                  and about Kursk smoke
                3. Sergey10789 20 January 2020 18: 38 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Well, firstly, I would not call this resource very "serious" - here in some article they were going to shoot at "serious enemy fighters" from serious S-300/400/500 tanks, and someone else, in a similar article, "confidently hit a moving target at a distance of 900m, protected by means of individual armor protection." Secondly, Nirazu did not see reliable data on the reservation of the forehead of t-90/72, namely those that are in service with the Russian Federation. as did not see the data on the durability of this reservation. Where did you get the data, sho Abrams is not killed in the forehead, and he, in turn, kills everything and everyone from a distance of 2 km ?! Iraq war ?! Well, there was far from the coolest opponent at Abrams. With far from the most modern shells. If I’m not mistaken, the shells used by Iraqi tankmen sowed from the armament of the USSR back in the 70s. And the third: on what fuel pump, under what conditions, circumstances did you decide to meet the foreheads of the RF Armed Forces and the US Armed Forces ?!
                4. Albert1988 20 January 2020 19: 28 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                  And it will be like on the Kursk Bulge where Tigers and Panthers acted in large numbers against our T-34s - for every wrecked Abrams - dozens of destroyed T-72B3 / T-90 !!!

                  A little late, but I’ll correct you - the score for tigers in Kursk went to tens, and panthers to hundreds (only 250 pieces, if I'm not mistaken), this is with the total number of tanks and other BTTs on both sides - about 6000 ... And the main defeat On the 34th, ordinary pieces with 75 mm cannons and similar towed artillery towed near Kursk ...
                  By the way, the modern doctrine of land combat of US troops involves destroying enemy tanks exclusively by means of aviation and ground ATGMs ...
        4. Albert1988 19 January 2020 18: 58 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: atalef
          what is taken into account? Will it be possible to charge any ammunition in the automatic loader?


          Namely, dear Atalef, the AZ T-14 takes both a new projectile 900 mm long, specially designed for it, and a new gun developed, as well as an old 700 mm long ...
      2. Ratmir_Ryazan 18 January 2020 13: 19 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Unfortunately, in modern MBTs that are in service with the Russian Federation, the design of the automatic loader and the dimensions of the tower do not allow the creation of shells with even greater penetration.


        So you need to change both the tower and the design of the automatic loader and if you need a caliber, and not engage in a waste of money, improving what ultimately turns out to be useless.
      3. voyaka uh 18 January 2020 13: 46 New
        • 15
        • 2
        +13
        "as RPG 7 took Abrams and the challengers with their vaunted armor Chopham in the forehead." ///
        ----
        Abrams in the forehead - not once. In the side of the corps in Iraq - it was. Challenger - was under Basra breaking through AML
        lower frontal plate of the body. They shot from below from the trench.
        1. Crimean partisan 1974 18 January 2020 18: 28 New
          • 7
          • 5
          +2
          Abrams in the forehead - never ....... but the photo, just the same in the frontal plate of the tower, is clearly an RPG
          1. opus 18 January 2020 19: 30 New
            • 7
            • 2
            +5
            Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
            ..a here’s a photo, just the same in the frontal plate of the tower, obviously an RPG

            and this (break through)
            Quote: silver_roman
            RPG 7 forehead
            ?

            The abandoned tank immediately became a TV star - the Iraqis actively used it for propaganda purposes. The Americans, of course, did not like it, and it was decided to destroy the combat vehicle.

            For this, M1 were issued two anti-tank missiles AGM-65 "Mayverik"that hit the starboard side and forehead of the tower, and the adjustable JDAM bomb was dropped. True, she did not get into the tank, but exploded near the port side ...


            if, then
            AGM-65A (B) Maverick

            Weight of the cumulative warhead (cumulative WDU-20 / B), kg ......... 56,25 belay
            1. Crimean partisan 1974 18 January 2020 19: 38 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              and this (break through) unless ....... judging by the skeleton of the tank, yes, the stew in the tank itself was not heated on an open fire, and pay attention to the brow in a disposable chemical kit, this is to avoid washing it from radioactive g ... (like our L-1) but immediately to the scrap,
              Weight of the cumulative warhead (cumulative WDU-20 / B), kg ......... 56,25 ....... for the first time I read about warhead meverick, everywhere it’s like warheads from a land mine, quite heavy, only GOS differ
              1. opus 18 January 2020 19: 54 New
                • 7
                • 2
                +5
                Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                they themselves didn’t heat the stew in the tank over an open fire

                just YOURSELF

                this is the most “famous” car M1A1 “Cojone Eh”. Her fate was unenviable - according to Colonel David Perkins, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division:
                the tank was shot either from an RPG or from a recoilless gun.
                The projectile passed under a ballistic shield on the side of the tank and pierced the fuel tank that started to burn. The crew for 20 minutes tried to put out their M1 by all means at hand, but in vain. Then it was decided to remove all the most valuable equipment from the tank and undermine it.

                First inside incendiary grenades were thrown, then fired into the stern of the tower another abrams.


                / aside: oh my God, really there was Java in favor /
                Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                For the first time I read about Mech

                1. And it doesn’t happen to her.
                Option AGM-65C is designed to defeat low-contrast targets. The missile is equipped with a semi-active laser seeker, high-explosive fragmentation Mk19 warhead increased efficiency weighing 113 kg
                2. all this is healthy, cumulative sews under 1200mm of armor for DZ (if I do not confuse), its current
                "on the shoulder" you can’t take: weight 200-300kg, (A-10, F-15E, F-16 carrier aircraft)
                worth a shot of $ 110- $ 000. and BOPS Merkava $ 10-000

                3. Besides money there are also resources

                AGM-65 planed for 80 pcs.
                and BOPS account goes, probably by 10 million
                1. Crimean partisan 1974 18 January 2020 20: 05 New
                  • 2
                  • 3
                  -1
                  it’s just YOURSELF ... the RPG became the root cause, and then everything else
                  it costs a shot of $ 110- $ 000. and BOPS Merkava $ 180-000 .... well, if Merkava knocks a carrier out of BOPS then ..... fantasy. but the carrier of Meverick will strangle Merkavu in one hundred percent of a hundred. The question is, how much merkava is worth? Go to the cartoon with 10-000 greenbacks if not more, so which member of the BOPS when UR is much more effective?
          2. aws4 19 January 2020 06: 33 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            here enta hole millimeters that way a hundred supposedly from an RPG? laughing
      4. Sailor 18 January 2020 14: 00 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        hi This is precisely why the article specifically emphasizes that this is the best option from UNIVERSAL BOPS, meaning primarily our main T-72 with an old assault rifle for "short" shells. For new guns of later versions, of course, elongated shells will go. So the news, in my opinion, is positive good
        1. Passing 18 January 2020 14: 41 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Seaman
          For new guns of later versions, of course, elongated shells will go.

          For hypothetical later modifications will be the same "short" shells. This is the principled position of the Moscow Region. Specifically, for the T-90M tank, a new 2A82 cannon was offered, which fired with "long" shells, but the MO insisted on a modernized gun of the "old" 2A46M format which did not fire with "long! Shells."
          1. Sailor 18 January 2020 17: 05 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Sad ...
            for the T-90M ... MO insisted on a modernized gun of the "old" format 2A46M

            It turns out that only with the arrival of Almaty can we expect a change in the situation?
      5. Vadim237 18 January 2020 14: 03 New
        • 5
        • 21
        -16
        Foreign BOPS DM 63, E4, our tanks even with DZ will sew oil from a distance of 2000 meters like a knife.
        1. Golovan Jack 18 January 2020 14: 27 New
          • 20
          • 9
          +11
          Quote: Vadim237
          Foreign BOPS DM 63, E4, our tanks, even with DZ, will sew oil from a distance of 2000 meters like a knife

          Vadik, do not meddle in something incomprehensible to you. Repair muffins in the service, everything is much simpler there ...
          1. Vadim237 18 January 2020 16: 30 New
            • 3
            • 16
            -13
            Do not drive garbage cat.
            1. Golovan Jack 18 January 2020 16: 51 New
              • 15
              • 6
              +9
              Quote: Vadim237
              Do not drive garbage cat.

              Not ham, it's not worth it. And the fact that you are in tanks - like I am in oysters - so don’t go to a fortuneteller ... buddy.
              1. Vadim237 18 January 2020 16: 55 New
                • 3
                • 12
                -9
                You don’t know what I understand - so keep quiet.
                1. Golovan Jack 18 January 2020 17: 00 New
                  • 13
                  • 8
                  +5
                  Quote: Vadim237
                  You do not know what I understand

                  I know. Not with anything. Like most small nouveau riche.

                  Well did you finish the MAI, sort of? Well, where are the tanks?

                  Quote: Vadim237
                  so keep quiet.

                  I'm leaving, I'm leaving, I'm leaving (s) laughing
                  1. aws4 19 January 2020 06: 52 New
                    • 6
                    • 3
                    +3
                    And what is the problem actually? what did Vadim write wrong? we look at the performance characteristics of the DM 63 and then the armor of our tanks and we come to the simple conclusion that both the T72b3 and T80 and, moreover, older cars, this projectile sews not only at 2 km, but even at those distances from which it can’t get ... for What person are you minus? if you don’t like something, look at the main tank in our troops ...
                    1. Golovan Jack 19 January 2020 08: 00 New
                      • 7
                      • 6
                      +1
                      Quote: aws4
                      we look tth DM 63 then the armor of our tanks

                      Let's get them in the studio. Do you position yourself as a specialist in these matters?

                      Quote: aws4
                      why are you minus a person?

                      Personally, my minuses are not there. Others, I suppose - rather for the tone than for the content of Vadim's comments.

                      IMHO the trouble of Vadim and other "tankers from the BOT" is that, having read somewhere the TTX of something, they immediately wonder how this thing will work in optimal for her conditions. So HERE: "in real life" these conditions are almost always, ahem, far from optimal. Therefore, terms like "sews" - leave shkolota, want to speak seriously - replace with "able to hit" ... then you can already speak.

                      Somehow yes
                      1. aws4 19 January 2020 11: 50 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Sorry, but you’re just blabbering now))))))))))))) tth yes please take VLD t72b -550-570mm right? DM 53-63 680mm at 2000 meters ... what else? the relic which essentially distinguishes the t72b3, t80bvm from the original B and BV, this projectile does not notice as the American M829 although they pierce even more than 700-800 mm for the same 2000 meters ... the one who believes that the relic or the Ukrainian knife is capable of somehow affect modern BOPS just believe in fairy tales .. this is primarily protection against kuma .. ... for t80bv there the armor is a little less for t80u a little more ... Round? - For 2000 meters, modern western BOPSs have a good supply ..
                      2. Golovan Jack 19 January 2020 12: 45 New
                        • 5
                        • 5
                        0
                        Quote: aws4
                        2000 meters, modern western BOPs have a good supply ..

                        In theory. In the laboratory. When the angle of the meeting with the forehead of the target is 90 degrees. Yes, without a bazaar laughing

                        The conversation was that such "greenhouse" conditions in nature, as a rule, do not occur.

                        In the end, the bullet 7.62, which hit the fighter at a distance of 500 meters, too, in your terminology with Vadim, "sews through it." However, practice shows that this does not always happen.

                        Somehow still like that request
                      3. aws4 19 January 2020 14: 20 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        well, again, trying to chat) well, not the hothouse conditions ... then we must take into account all the weakened zones of the frontal projection .. and our tanks from 64 to 90th have such a lot and the entire lower frontal sheet and the upper part of the upper and the gun mask and the tower com area and the shoulder strap of the tower ..) do you like this dialogue? do you think these are the arguments?)
                      4. Golovan Jack 19 January 2020 14: 24 New
                        • 5
                        • 5
                        0
                        Quote: aws4
                        do you think these are the arguments?

                        No.

                        Quote: aws4
                        do you like this dialogue?

                        No. I do not like empty chatter, you know.

                        Solids: your

                        Quote: aws4
                        2000 meters modern western BOPs have a good supply

                        and Vadimovo

                        Quote: Vadim237
                        BOPS DM 63, E4, our tanks, even with DZ, will be sewn like butter with a knife

                        - the essence two big differences. However, you are nevertheless closer to the truth than Vadim. What I propose to dwell on yes
                      5. aws4 20 January 2020 04: 45 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        well, at least here we converge)))) you know, I don’t have a task to ruin everything of ours and exalt all of them .. it just hurts my soul ... yet they perfectly understand that if the Germans considered it necessary they would have already developed a new shell .. just by to their calculations, their dm 53-63 is quite enough to hit our main tanks .. see how quickly they react .. t-14 is only in a test batch and they have a bang and already have a new 140mm gun on the leo ... and they put it do not rush because they understand that T14 is still far from mass production .. do you really think that if they were yes and America These shells would not be enough to destroy the same T90s which we had in service for more than 300 and 200 more in storage they would not have sounded the alarm with new shells and guns ... they are not in a hurry to spend money because they see superiority and go along ways of unhurried modernization, increasing the gap and so ... the Germans are in no hurry to increase the power of the BOPs, considering that it is enough to increase the length of the barrel, and the Americans, on the contrary, are not in a hurry to put the ready-made cannon with 55 barrel to put on the abrams, because they have a shell that is really high last M829 already for 800 mm has exceeded .. all this is sad .. the only good news is that the importance of tanks is not so great in modern warfare as in WWII and that the probability of oncoming tank battles is negligible .. in principle, I like the latest modifications of the T72b3 and T80bvm precisely because they were taken care of precisely from defense against kumy .. the new DZ plus covered better than the board .. it’s really very good .. by the way I don’t know if it is true or not, but I read on one of the forums the opinion that the new DZ and its location increased the survivability of the T72B3 compared to the T72B when fired from RPGs and ATGM 1-2 generation with different r somewhere around 50% of the assets .. that is, now you need to spend more shots to destroy or disable this tank ... and if so, then this is very good !!!
          2. Vadim237 19 January 2020 11: 27 New
            • 0
            • 5
            -5
            "I know. Nothing. Like most small nouveau riche." You follow your broomstick - I never stole anything from anyone - and you don’t need to ascribe to me the peculiarities of the life of the “Small nouveau riche”. And leave yourselves a schismatic schizob about what you supposedly know, that I know.
            1. Golovan Jack 19 January 2020 12: 23 New
              • 5
              • 5
              0
              Quote: Vadim237
              "Small nouveau riche" - no need to ascribe to me

              Nouveau riche (from the French nouveau riche, literally - the new rich man), a person who quickly became rich (as a rule, during social changes)


              What's wrong, Vadim?

              If you are suddenly touched by the word "small", then, excuse me, "large" is Friedman and is nearby. You are there ... well, definitely not nearby.

              Once again - what is wrong, Vadim? wink

              Quote: Vadim237
              You watch your broomstick

              I’m just following ... unlike yes
  • lucul 18 January 2020 14: 31 New
    • 5
    • 5
    0
    Foreign BOPS DM 63, E4, our tanks even with DZ will sew oil from a distance of 2000 meters like a knife.

    According to their brochures, breaking through TOW should have been enough for the T-90 tower ...
    But in reality
    1. Vadim237 18 January 2020 16: 35 New
      • 2
      • 12
      -10
      He has a penetration of 900 mm behind dynamic protection, but he didn’t get into the frontal part of the T 90 tower, but hit the roof between the gunner’s sight and the Curtain optical device.
    2. mvg
      mvg 18 January 2020 18: 22 New
      • 7
      • 5
      +2
      But in reality

      Do you know the difference between a cumulative munition and a uranium crowbar? Or is it fun to spread garbage? The TOW-2B has a maximum penetration of 800 mm for the cumulative ammunition. T-90A forehead does not take him. Watch less such clips on TV from experts a la Sivkoff
      1. aws4 19 January 2020 06: 56 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        why should he know ??? cheers patriots they don’t care ours is all the best .. by the way, like people of opposing views, where is our all oh what a bad thing ... rarely anyone since you are Maxim looks at the characteristics .. for them it is not important but otherwise))))
  • Nikolaevich I 18 January 2020 15: 14 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Quote: silver_roman
    How many times have I heard how RPG 7 took both Abrams and the challengers with their much-praised Chopham armor.

    You didn’t hear ... The well-known "knockouts" of the "abrams" from RPG-7 were noted when they hit the side and the stern ...
  • aws4 19 January 2020 06: 28 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    well, if you believe that you heard somewhere, I congratulate you on the gorgeous argument ... and even the penetration will not be higher than ... at 1000 meters it does not reach 800 mm according to calculations .. accordingly, not the last abrams of the last ones he doesn’t take upgrades in the forehead, with the exception of weakened zones ...
  • evgenii67 20 January 2020 08: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Proofs will be like RPG-7 in the forehead took Abrams and especially Challengers
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. atalef 18 January 2020 13: 06 New
      • 14
      • 22
      -8
      Quote: GB-M
      Well, Russians know how to wet armored vehicles, it’s already in the blood

      Vitaly, is there alcohol in your blood, look at the sofa, not for or for? urine wink
      1. silver_roman 18 January 2020 14: 10 New
        • 11
        • 4
        +7
        Listen, how much rubbish is in you. you would be silent if you say nothing smart. Nerd Fucking
    2. aws4 19 January 2020 07: 02 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      excuse me, dear, but I was almost sick of this song ... what a disgrace ... you know what my old men told me about the war .. how they survived it, how they fought and that I hear this vomiting ... shame !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Alexey G 18 January 2020 13: 20 New
    • 6
    • 17
    -11
    Yes, I agree with you. I wanted to say it myself. Only aboard can Abrash beat with Lekal. And here he is Our tanks of obsolete models can beat in the forehead from a decent distance. Only perhaps the T90 breakthrough and Armata could stand in the forehead.
  • Andrzej k 18 January 2020 13: 21 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Abramsi should probably have at least 3BM60 Lead-2 or 3BM69 Vacuum-1 or 3BM70 Vacuum-2. The last two are already from 2A82
  • Sky strike fighter 18 January 2020 13: 43 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    3BM44 "Pattern" is rather weak.

    Modern modifications of Abrams have a tower protection from BOPS - 900 mm, and the hull - 700 mm.

    In the frontal projection Abrams BOPS 3BM44 "Pattern" does not penetrate. This is bad.

    Even worse, they tell us that this is enough to destroy all modern tanks.

    Well, if it’s not in the forehead, then it’ll certainly hit the hull, which means it’s quite good for upgrading the T-72 and other Soviet manins, and there the T-14 will arrive in time with new subcaliber shells. The estimated armor penetration of 3BM44 Lekalo is 650-700 mm.
    “The true miracle of military-technical thought is the 125 mm 3BM42M Lead ammunition. The name of the ammunition, it seems to me, very well describes its properties. Lead is heavy metal, and if you drop its piece on your foot, it will be very painful. All the same T-3, T-42 and T-64 tanks were ordered to drop the 72BM80M, however, in the case of Lead, the estimated armor penetration was not 300 mm, not 400 mm, or even 500 mm, but stopped at the mark in 640-650 mm. The ammunition was made using a core of depleted uranium and at the exit of the tank’s gun barrel had a speed of 1750 meters per second. I think no Western tank would have liked a meeting with such ammunition, ”says Sergei Arkhipov, a military engineer and reserve officer, a graduate of the Ulyanovsk Guards Higher Tank Command School.
    According to the expert, the 125-mm 3BM44 Lekalo special ammunition, the estimated armor penetration of which was 650–700 mm, became a peculiar feature, summed up under the line of the most powerful armor-piercing sub-caliber ammunition.

    https://pikabu.ru/story/chem_t72_probet_abrams_vse_o_nashikh_tankovyikh_snaryadakh_4084557
  • Alekseev 18 January 2020 15: 26 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    3BM44 "Pattern" is rather weak.

    Modern modifications of Abrams have a tower protection from BOPS - 900 mm, and the hull - 700 mm.

    How do we know, however? From ZVO and other mass media? Well, I see ... as a classic wrote. laughing
    On the issue of armor penetration more specifically. "Tower defense from BOPS -900 mm" sounds too general. What BOPS? From what distance? What is the angle between the projectile and the armor?
    Everything, you see, is much more complicated ...
    Quote: silver_roman
    Modern NATO shells have a much longer projectile than domestic ones. This, in turn, increases the speed of the projectile and, as a result, its penetration.

    But what about the length of the ammunition that increases the speed of the projectile? It seems like a long one has less aerodynamic drag, but this is not the main thing.
    Here, most likely, the pressure in the bore is important. Now it’s great to increase everything. yes And in the "long" BOPS there is an opportunity to push the gunpowder more, that is, to increase this very pressure with the caliber unchanged. And save the mass of the projectile and core with a smaller cross section. here, separate charging is not a hindrance, because in addition to the main charge, limited by the size of the charging chamber, the BOPS itself is inside an additional charge, which is greater the longer. But there are still side chapels in both length and pressure.
    Therefore, Lekalo most likely fully complies with “ever-increasing requirements,” but one should not forget about the 152-mm gun on Armata (or the module on the model of model 292 on the T-90, T-80 base).
  • Jager 20 January 2020 10: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And who actually measured it, that it corresponds to 900 mm homogenity in durability?
  • LiSiCyn 18 January 2020 12: 51 New
    • 13
    • 3
    +10
    There is movement, it pleases! In any case, you need to change stocks in warehouses. So it’s better to change to new developments than to old ones.
  • Mountain shooter 18 January 2020 12: 53 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    Shells are good. So powerful - even more so. Accuracy is on the level. But armor penetration - in general!
    Given the large silhouette of Abrams - ours should have an advantage.
    1. Alexey G 18 January 2020 13: 53 New
      • 3
      • 10
      -7
      Well, in a certain situation, yes, perhaps! The nature of the area plays an important role. On flat ground, the Abrashi will use their super optics and our small sizes will do little. In general, small tanks should have a significant advantage in speed and number, which in my opinion is not observed now. The reduction in the number of tanks can not but rejoice NATO, their nightmare about the Russian tank hordes is a thing of the past.
  • 1959ain 18 January 2020 12: 55 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    3BM44 "Pattern" is rather weak.

    Modern modifications of Abrams have a tower protection from BOPS - 900 mm, and the hull - 700 mm.

    In the frontal projection Abrams BOPS 3BM44 "Pattern" does not penetrate. This is bad.

    Even worse, they tell us that this is enough to destroy all modern tanks.

    The Lekalo is suitable for any 125 mm gun of all the tanks in service today. And among such universal ammunition "Lekalo" out of competition. If its predecessor - the Mango shell - pierces 520 mm of solid armor from a distance of 2 km, then for a new sample the figure is 650 mm. This is enough to defeat the American M1A2 Abrams modern modifications. And who to believe soldier
    1. opus 18 January 2020 13: 15 New
      • 14
      • 5
      +9
      Quote: 1959ain
      And who to believe

      the mask will definitely break

      the key here
      If its predecessor - the Mango shell - pierces 520 mm solid armor from a distance of 2 km, then for a new sample the figure is 650 mm


      The effectiveness of reservation fillers is different for each machine modification: m1a1 (since 1985) has an AD92 corundum ceramic filler. M1A1HA (since 1988) corundum ceramics AD92 and uranoceramics UO87, (1990 g) M1A1HA + \ D \ M1A2 corundum ceramics AD95, and 2nd generation uranoceramics UO100, (since 2000) M1A2SEP \ SEPv2 \ M1A1SA \ FEP have Uranus and FEP ADOku 95rd generation UO3 with graphite spraying and titanium as a lining for replacement booking packages instead of aluminum. Also, in addition to the main fillers of the reservation, Kevlar, fiberglass, titanium, rubber and other materials are used to a small extent.

      * thickness of the frontal projection of the tower first M1 (1980) is 663 mm (62 mm outer steel plate + 500 mm combined reservation + 101 mm rear steel plate), the body protection is presented in the form of 563 mm overall (similar in thickness to the back and outer plates and 400 mm composite overall).
      * starting with IPM1 (1984) and ending with M1A2 SEPv2 (2008), the thickness of the frontal armor of the tower is (62 - 700 - 101) 863 mm, and the hull (62-500-101) 663 mm.


      3BM44 "Pattern", estimated armor penetration 650-700 mm
      Comparison of OBPS 125 mm caliber (top to bottom): length / diameter ratio is visible even without special instruments
      3BM48,
      3BM44M,
      M829A2 (USA),
      NORINKO TK125 (PRC)
      OBPS caliber 120 mm
      DM53 (Germany)
      CL3241 (Israel).
      1. prodi 18 January 2020 14: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        theoretically, any of our BOPS can slip between the hull and the tower in pursuit
        1. opus 18 January 2020 15: 09 New
          • 9
          • 2
          +7
          Quote: prodi
          theoretically, any of our BOPS can slip between the hull and the tower in pursuit

          "This is not our method" ...
          Try to get there, especially in the database.
          When they “design” - they don’t count on it at all, this is a bonus
          1. prodi 18 January 2020 15: 32 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            I agree, but against the background of only a mask - a completely commensurate area;
            besides, it’s not true that they don’t expect it - ours and the Germans, for example, quite thought about it in their cars
            1. opus 18 January 2020 15: 36 New
              • 7
              • 2
              +5
              Quote: prodi
              and it’s not true that they don’t count - ours and the Germans,

              I'm talking about BOPS. No one at the "project" BOPS does not pretend that he
              Quote: prodi
              BOPS can slip between the hull and the tower in pursuit
              1. prodi 18 January 2020 16: 08 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                well, well, but don’t you think that you can still quite tightly dock the two short parts of the BOPS, in our version of the separate charge, into one?
                1. opus 18 January 2020 16: 21 New
                  • 6
                  • 2
                  +4
                  Quote: prodi
                  to dock two short parts of BOPS, in our version of a separate charge, into one?

                  hardly possible.
                  BOPS is essentially scrap.

                  Of key importance is the ratio of dlina to diameter and scrap material.
                  At a certain L / d ratio, it will just “chase” or float when generated, it will not break through
                  1. prodi 18 January 2020 16: 29 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    this is understandable, but, say, a quite tolerable thickening of the diameter at the junction in the middle part and a softer back part? Here it’s not even so much in diameter or “floats”, a long crowbar bluntly flies more accurately
                    1. opus 18 January 2020 16: 48 New
                      • 7
                      • 2
                      +5
                      Quote: prodi
                      let's say a quite tolerable thickening of the diameter at the junction in the middle part and a softer back part?

                      where will the center of mass be?
                      / Modeling the process of interaction of ammunition with a passive barrier / A.A. Akimov [et al.] // WTO Systems. Creation, application and perspectives. Scientific and technical journal. Instrument Design Bureau Academician A.G. Shipunova. /
                      Quote: prodi
                      long scrap stupidly more accurately flies

                      that's another topic
                      / N.Sh. Malikov, V.E. Slutsky A SPATIAL MODEL OF STUDYING THE DYNAMICS OF INTERACTION IN THE SYSTEM “WEAPON-SHIELD-SHOT” FOR SOLVING THE ACCURACY PROBLEMS OF THE SHIELD “Burevestnik Research Institute” /
                  2. Vadim237 18 January 2020 16: 44 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Only it is much more complicated than scrap in design
                    Mango and Mango M - aka Lekalo - two tandem cores in the case
                    1. opus 18 January 2020 16: 53 New
                      • 5
                      • 2
                      +3
                      Quote: opus
                      BOPS is in fact scrap.


                      In fact, he, like me, does almost nothing for the company - there is no work.

                      A. R. Belyaev, The Wonderful Eye, 1935
                      Threat. for mathematical modeling - scrap will come down
                      1. Vadim237 18 January 2020 16: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Just a Dart
                      2. opus 18 January 2020 17: 17 New
                        • 5
                        • 2
                        +3
                        Fast flying scrap of hard and heavy metal is still the best weapon against the tank
                        "plumage" need only for accuracy
                      3. Crimean partisan 1974 18 January 2020 18: 37 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Fast-flying scrap made of hard and heavy metal is still the best weapon against the tank ...... but the statistics are that almost all dead tanks from cumulative
                      4. opus 18 January 2020 19: 18 New
                        • 4
                        • 3
                        +1
                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        the only statistics is that almost all dead tanks from cumulative

                        in WarThunder or in World of tanks?
                        I would like it
                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        statistics
                        to the studio
                        as ? not weak?
                      5. Crimean partisan 1974 18 January 2020 19: 29 New
                        • 0
                        • 5
                        -5
                        to the studio
                        as ? not weak? ...... weak. or rather, not to me but to the VO resource in the commentary, the amount of information is limited, and even so, you left the lethargic dream yesterday or from a coma. over the past 4 years, tanks around the world burned like matches (Donbass, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and so on) by all using ATGMs, but you know all ATGMs and RPGs are cumulative, except perhaps the seven have a large grenade range
                      6. opus 18 January 2020 19: 41 New
                        • 7
                        • 3
                        +4
                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        weakly. rather not to me but to the VO resource in the comment

                        it’s clear, you can strain and strike up the article, which is already there, if it’s difficult to give a short link to “statistics”
                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        white, you in the course of yesterday from a lethargic dream came out or from a coma

                        I don’t remember that they drank beer at Brudershaft, but oh well, I’ll tolerate it.
                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        Religion as matches (Donbass, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and so on by little) all with the help of anti-tank systems, and anti-tank systems and RPGs you know everything cumulative,

                        fool
                        speech in the article and about
                        Quote: opus
                        Fast-flying scrap made of hard and heavy metal is still the best weapon against the tank.

                        what flies out of the gun / barrel
                        and so it is possible to navigate about aviation, and about artillery of large caliber, mines, etc., etc.
                        Troll that is.
                        Threat. as I understand it
                        Quote: Crimean partisan 1974
                        that's just the statistics

                        it's a la la
                      7. Crimean partisan 1974 18 January 2020 19: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 5
                        -5
                        if it’s difficult to bring a short link to the “statistics” ......... and those that can’t get into the search engine about the tank “candles” in the territories I have given .... well, I can’t help
                        Well, okay, I can stand it .... do not endure, take it for granted
                        what flies out of the cannon / barrel .... waxes a long time ago from the cannons of our tanks exclusively UR KUV should fly out, and not the ancient crowbars and armor piercing
                        especially since the stream production of this unit (UR) has been adjusted for 40 years, and once adjusted, the price should be reduced to indecent,
                        it's "la-la" .... lyalya not lyalya and barmalei five pieces of Turkish leopards in 5 minutes otallahakbarili from the ATGM, and even in Yemen along the way from the old bassoons
  • Sky strike fighter 18 January 2020 14: 06 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: 1959ain
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    3BM44 "Pattern" is rather weak.

    Modern modifications of Abrams have a tower protection from BOPS - 900 mm, and the hull - 700 mm.

    In the frontal projection Abrams BOPS 3BM44 "Pattern" does not penetrate. This is bad.

    Even worse, they tell us that this is enough to destroy all modern tanks.

    The Lekalo is suitable for any 125 mm gun of all the tanks in service today. And among such universal ammunition "Lekalo" out of competition. If its predecessor - the Mango shell - pierces 520 mm of solid armor from a distance of 2 km, then for a new sample the figure is 650 mm. This is enough to defeat the American M1A2 Abrams modern modifications. And who to believe soldier

    Believe it is necessary to facts, not advertising. Interesting information at the link below.
    Indeed, the M1A1 General Abrams main battle tank, as well as its modifications M1A1NA and M1A2, have high frontal projection protection, which is about 550-770 mm (depending on version) from feathered armor-piercing projectile shells and about 800-1110 (depending from modification) from cumulative means of destruction. However, we are talking about booking the most protected areas that make up less than 50% of the frontal projection of the tank.
    In other areas, the defeat of the tank is not difficult for a skilled and knowledgeable fighter about weak booking areas. In addition, the test data of the M1A1NA tank with reinforced armor using depleted uranium showed that the data on its armor protection given in open sources are very high and for this modification are no more than 550-600 mm at a distance of 1000 m from anti-feathered armor-piercing-caliber shells and about 800 mm from cumulative weapons.

    https://pikabu.ru/story/kak_unichtozhit_amerikanskiy_boevoy_tank_abrams_5570680
  • Thrifty 18 January 2020 13: 14 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    So, like, Khlopotov said that the “Lekalo” penetrates 650 mm of armor at a distance of 2 kilometers! negative Could completely lead the article and not a fragment about anything! negative
  • Incvizitor 18 January 2020 13: 16 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    650 mm. This is enough to defeat the American M1A2 Abrams modern modifications
    Head-on? There, like 700-800 mm.
    1. lucul 18 January 2020 14: 13 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Head-on? There, like 700-800 mm.

      It is with 2m ...
      1. opus 18 January 2020 15: 17 New
        • 8
        • 3
        +5
        Quote: lucul
        It is with 2m ...

        +
        solid armor!
        but not 3rd generation uranoceramics UO100 (with graphite coating in titanium bags)

        essentially the same NERA, but upgraded
        Arrangement of NERA elements (ceramic plates) in the frontal part of the M1 housing
    2. Genry 18 January 2020 15: 22 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Incvizitor
      There, like 700-800 mm.

      Composite armor.
      Only part of it works effectively against BOPS, and part is a filler against cumulative ones.
      For the “Pattern”, only penetration of real armor is indicated, without filler (in terms of).
  • Zaurbek 18 January 2020 13: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Lost in the forehead?
  • Star Destroyer 18 January 2020 13: 37 New
    • 7
    • 8
    -1
    has already prepared the first contract with its co-executors for the final assembly of 2 thousand new ammunition.
    one projectile per projectile per tank, as in the time of World War II? Well, this is a breakthrough, I believe, even without buildup!
    And the "pattern" itself has long been out of date, the shell was developed back in the 90s !!
    650 mm. This is enough to defeat the American M1A2 Abrams modern modifications
    slyness, not a single western MBT he can penetrate in the forehead, only to damage with a successful hit.
    If its predecessor - the Mango shell - pierces 520 mm of solid armor from a distance of 2 km
    and “mangoes” did not have such characteristics. In general, the article is yet another analog_guin.
    1. lucul 18 January 2020 14: 14 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      slyness, not a single western MBT he can penetrate in the forehead, only to damage with a successful hit.

      2m - is the article difficult to read? )))
      1. Star Destroyer 18 January 2020 14: 33 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Above, I even mentioned 2 kilometers.
        Is it difficult to read a comment before replying to it?
        1. lucul 18 January 2020 14: 54 New
          • 3
          • 5
          -2
          Above, I even mentioned 2 kilometers.
          slyness, not a single western MBT he can penetrate in the forehead, only to damage with a successful hit.

          And to you again:
          According to their brochures, breaking through TOW should have been enough for the T-90 tower ...
          But in reality .....
          1. Nehist 18 January 2020 15: 28 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Which of the TOW modifications was used? Here you have a choice of BGM-71A TOW
            BGM-71B
            BGM-71C Improved TOW
            BGM-71D TOW-2
            BGM-71E TOW-2A
            BGM-71F TOW-2B
            BGM-71H TOW Bunker Buster
            TOW-2B Aero
            The characteristics are very different.
          2. opus 18 January 2020 15: 51 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            Quote: lucul
            should have been enough for the tower T-90 ....

            no .. this was not.
            Everywhere they write, for example for BGM-71E TOW-2A:
            Eingeführt 1986; mit Tandemhohlladung zur Bekämpfung von Reaktivpanzerung, Panzerdurchschlag 900–1.020 mm RHA

            RHA-Rolled homogeneous armor (homogeneous rolled armor).
            The key here homogeneous

            T-90, the more so in the tower .. "cavity with protective fillers" + DZ +
  • Operator 18 January 2020 13: 46 New
    • 7
    • 7
    0
    Khlopotov once again lied - the new Beks “Lekalo” (which is part of a separate loading shot) with 650 mm penetration of homogeneous steel armor will not overpower the modern Abrams modification with composite ceramic protection equivalent to homogeneous steel armor - the forehead of the hull / tower 700 / 900 mm.

    Only a unitary shot with BOPS increased to 950 mm in length will help. But then the ammunition will need to be located in the aft niche of the tank turret, and this is hindered by the faith of the workers of the GABTU of the RF Ministry of Defense.
    1. Artemiy_2 18 January 2020 14: 00 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      Personally ruler measured the armor of the abrams?
    2. Star Destroyer 18 January 2020 14: 01 New
      • 3
      • 7
      -4
      In the AZ of the most common, basic Soviet-made T72, shells penetrate up to 670 mm long.
      BOPS of the modern American m829a3 630mm long.
      The question is how much garbage can be carried that “separate loading interferes with making normal shells”?
      In 30 * 165 caliber, too, separate charging prevents normal shells from doing? With the rifleman the same thing, I’ll come up with a million excuses, if only I couldn’t do normal bullets ...
      1. Passing 18 January 2020 15: 00 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Quote: Star Destroyer
        BOPS of the modern American m829a3 630mm long.

        You are fundamentally wrong, here is the picture M829A3

        Overall dimension 982 mm, length of the most projectile 924 mm
  • Alexey G 18 January 2020 14: 08 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Perhaps the best solution would be to equip 70 percent of the T90 tanks with a 2a82 cannon from Almaty and put meter-long projectiles like vacuum! Then install on them a niche behind the tower and the latest dynamic protection in the general type T90 Breakthrough. Then do the T90e only in this way, since Armata will not become our main tank and will only be a cherry on the cake. It would also be possible to put a breakthrough and KAZ on the T90, such as the arena or Afghanit. But this is if there is money. In my opinion, you need to start with guns. The most powerful gun is the best response to the threat. This is the only way they will be afraid of us.
    1. Military77 18 January 2020 14: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      For 2A82M there is a product 3BM60 "Lead-2". And this is the usual "consumer goods" for everyday use, so to speak. I’m sure there will be a shell with a uranium core and a penetration of 850 under the Lekalo base, in a limited series
      1. Alexey G 18 January 2020 16: 24 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        I will not argue with you, because I am an amateur, but there is a feeling that for 2A46 650mm this is the limit. And uranium will not help her much, because it is very heavy. Need more gunpowder and therefore more sleeve. Longer shell.
    2. Passing 18 January 2020 15: 13 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Alexey G
      Perhaps the best solution would be to retool 70 percent of the T90 tanks with a 2a82 gun

      In addition to the gun, you will have to change the automatic loader, cut through the stripes on the sides of the hull in the area of ​​the AZ, weld additional armor on top of the cut. In addition, you will have to finish the OMS. And if so, then a complete replacement of the LMS and communications with modern ones suggests itself. And the engine is more powerful. In short, only the hull, turret and chassis will remain of the old tank. And this work will not be serial, conveyor, but manual, piece, and therefore costly in man-hours. Modernization will cost comparable to buying a new tank. For example, with the T-90M. So maybe it’s not worth it?
      1. Alexey G 18 January 2020 16: 06 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        It must be considered. It is unlikely that modernization is equal to a new tank with the same performance. I read that there are engineering solutions on this issue and they were proposed to our MO, but have not yet been accepted by them. Perhaps in order to avoid manual work, it was possible to make a new serial tower for the T90go, more spacious for a new gun. The tower will be able to include both an automatic loader and an LMS.
        However, the T90 with an old gun is only suitable for whipping terrorists in Syria. In a serious conflict, it is applicable to a limited extent. They have already written about this. Stalin would hardly have begun to save a lot here seeing our lag behind a potential adversary. The pattern of course is not bad, but not promising. Those countries that buy from us T90y can start buying from the United States or from the Germans, for example with their super gun.
        1. Passing 18 January 2020 16: 34 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Alexey G
          However, the T90 with an old gun is only suitable for whipping terrorists in Syria. In a serious conflict, it is applicable to a limited extent.

          IMHO, MO and does not pose other tasks for tanks, shootings with the Abrams and Leopards are excluded in principle.
          IMHO, at the top they are clearly aware that a classical war with the West is by no means unacceptable, because the potentials are not comparable. Our only trump card, the joker, the guarantee against attack, is nuclear weapons, and all that covers it from a disarming strike. Everything else is needed to solve local problems, and as a counterweight to the power of the West, in principle, is not considered.
          1. Alexey G 18 January 2020 16: 54 New
            • 4
            • 6
            -2
            I do not think so. First, the United States can arm third countries with Abrashas, ​​which they are already doing.
            If Georgia had Abrams tanks, then in 2008 it would have been much harder for us ... And these tanks could appear at Zelensky. Well, for example ...
            Secondly, the dominance of nuclear weapons is not a panacea. In words, we are ready to apply it, but in practice? This is a big question. Putin may do it, and another president? Of the liberals? This is an apocalypse. Are you ready to go for it? Kill them all? Myself, your children, all living things? Ready? You spared money on upgrading some tins! They are dear to you! And here the question is much more serious! Well this is the existential aspect of what is called. And take the technical one. What if a deterrent from a nuclear missile strike is found in the future ?? Have you ever thought about this? But science is moving forward, while you regret it means. Then you will be left with ineffective strategic nuclear forces and old rubbish in the form of a land army. Not a fun prospect then.
            Thirdly, we earn money from the sale of weapons, including tanks of course. And they will not buy trash if it is aging faster than threats to its customers.
            1. Passing 18 January 2020 18: 30 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Alexey G
              US can arm third countries with Abraham

              I partially agree with you, but, there is a nuance, the Americans, so far, do not sell Abrams with uranium armor, for example, they were delivered to Iraq without it. So such Abrams, perhaps our teeth in the teeth.
              Quote: Alexey G
              Secondly, the dominance of nuclear weapons is not a panacea. In words, we are ready to apply it, but in practice?

              Panacea. Real readiness is not important, it is enough to publicly declare the presence of such, and no one dares to check.
              Quote: Alexey G
              This is an apocalypse ... Kill everyone? Myself, your children, all living things?

              Artistic exaggeration. A real nuclear war will not be worse than the Great Patriotic War for the USSR. Those. half of the country is in ruins, tens of millions of dead, but all this is being restored in several decades, the main thing is not to be the losing side, and that the elite be adequate to the challenges.
              Quote: Alexey G
              What if a deterrent from a nuclear missile strike is found in the future?

              There is no transcendental miracle weapon and is not expected. There are concrete technologies known to everyone, at least in theory, that are either already mastered or are being developed.
              The United States is actively working in this direction, has already adopted a bunch of stealth aircraft and drones for a disarming strike, is deploying a global missile defense network (GBI, AEGIS), is already testing a prototype space strike drone X-37, and at the same time reducing the number of targets intercepted by the START criminal treaty 3, which we joyfully signed.
              On the other hand, we are doing something in response, hypersonic blocks and new delivery systems will radically reduce the effectiveness of current missile defense systems, they are constantly improving air defense against a disarming strike, all of these Shells and S-400 were not created at all as export goods.
              So there is a danger, but its magnitude is inversely proportional to our efforts to counter it. You just have to work on it, continuously.
              Quote: Alexey G
              old rubbish in the form of a land army

              Not rubbish, but a product at a minimum price that provides a solution to local problems. The economy of a semi-colonial country cannot afford more.
              Quote: Alexey G
              we make money from selling weapons

              On export earnings, you can afford ostentatious excesses, such as Almaty, but it is impossible to arm the army with perfect weapons. For reference, the military budget is $ 60 billion, and we sell weapons for $ 13 billion. And of these 13 billion, it is not known what profit, let it be 3 billion. How much can you afford $ 3 billion?
              1. Alexey G 18 January 2020 21: 30 New
                • 0
                • 5
                -5
                Americans, so far, do not sell Abrams with uranium armor, for example, they delivered to Iraq without it. So such Abrams, perhaps our teeth in the teeth.

                They sell to their best allies! Or replace with tungsten, which is not much worse. Besides, the word doesn’t triple me "Till".
                Panacea. Real readiness is not important, it is enough to publicly declare the presence of such, and no one dares to check.

                Not enough! Promising and doing this is not the same thing. And the fact that for a long time Russia swallowed saliva and muttered when Yugoslavia and Iraq were bombed, indicated that it could do much to wipe and wipe. if a politician like Gorbachev comes to power, then nothing will be applied. Even more reckless to decide on this is not easy.
                Artistic exaggeration. A real nuclear war will not be worse than the Great Patriotic War for the USSR. Those. half of the country is in ruins, tens of millions of dead, but all this is being restored in several decades, the main thing is not to be the losing side, and that the elite be adequate to the challenges.

                You can immediately see you are young. And they did not see the chronicle of nuclear weapons tests from old Soviet films. Take a look! If this begins, then out of fear of an answer so many will be released that no world war can be compared. 40 years of nuclear winter! Not only countries, there may not be a planet. The United States has much more warheads. They will kill us all 10 times, well, and we probably all 6 of them too. That is why they will not start it, but will conduct an ordinary war with tanks and guns, because this bluff with nuclear weapons will not work. Why do you think the United States is transferring tanks to the Baltic states? YES THAT TAXPAYERS CONTINUE TO ALLOCATE MONEY FOR US DEFENSE TO SAVE NATO. Yes it is, but the gun on the wall at the end of the play will certainly shoot. Remember the Russo-Japanese War. We then lost Port Arthur and nothing! Then they did not take revenge on the Japs. Ate and all. Why did you decide that someday we won’t eat the loss of Kaliningrad ?? Is it worth starting a nuclear war out of this? You yourself click on the button, if you would be given? So, do not click! You are not a suicide victim! No darling! You will fight with infantry and of course with tanks, but it turns out that the Tanya are weak and the enemy will offer you peace ... Well, it will give you time to pack your bags and leave with a bayonet and in stripes! And in return, the promise not to hit you again!
                There is no transcendental miracle weapon and is not expected.

                Congratulations, it continues to be developed! For example, working with lasers is noteworthy! We did not see how the Germans created laser anti-aircraft guns and shoot down mortar mines with them! Look on the internet, you can even find a video. Yes, so far these are the first steps, but this is the future. There are US attempts to install a F16 laser for defense against missiles. Further more. The age of rocket weapons is about to exhaust itself and a new era will begin, just as bows and arrows are gone. Everything becomes trash and that’s why sitting and enjoying the nuclear triad is not a good strategy! It was not for nothing that Putin showed Daggers, Vanguards, Poseidons, and of course the Sarmatians. He understands that it is necessary to cool the hot guys there, but their economics are rushing and rushing, they will not stop.
                Not rubbish, but a product at a minimum price that provides a solution to local problems.

                So the third world countries are growing up and no longer want our Soviet improved version. Even Hindu friends begin to kick. We can’t stand still.
                For reference, the military budget is $ 60 billion, and we sell weapons for $ 13 billion.

                Your help is ridiculous. In military spending, Russia in 2019 ranks 6th with a figure of $ 61 billion.
                In military revenues, we hold second place in the world after the United States. According to SIPRI, in 2014–2018, the US share in the global arms export market was 36%, Russia - 21%. France is in third place by a wide margin, whose result is close to 7%. In 2018, shipments reached a record $ 13,7 billion. Russia cooperates with almost 100 countries of the world, and the portfolio of orders through military-technical cooperation (MTC) over the past few years has been at least $ 45 billion, and by the end of 2018 amounted to $ 55 billion. https://rostec.ru/news/novye-rekordy-rossii-na-mirovom-oruzheynom-rynke/ Here read how important it is for us or not so?
                1. Passing 18 January 2020 23: 01 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  Quote: Alexey G
                  You can immediately see you are young.

                  Unfortunately no.
                  Quote: Alexey G
                  40 years of nuclear winter!

                  Propaganda campaign. A group of scientists put forward a hypothesis, a common thing, without deep research it costs nothing, and these studies have not been carried out, but very successfully fell into the stream, and the theory was transformed into a stable myth. Which is not very correlated with reality. For example, the ash discharge from the Krakatau eruption with a capacity of 200 megatons is comparable in scale to a nuclear war, but there was no “volcanic winter”. And, besides, it was developed for an order of magnitude more warheads than there are in the world at the moment.
                  Quote: Alexey G
                  They will kill us all 10 times, well, and we probably all 6 of them too.

                  Another persistent myth that contradicts elementary logic. Under START-3, the number of deployed warheads is 1550. The number of cities in Russia is 1100, the number of villages is 150000. Now explain how 1550 warheads destroy 160000 objects. Not ten times, but at least once. Moreover, keep in mind that the goals of warheads will not be specifically cities, but key objects of scientific, industrial and military potential. Those. several key warheads will fall on key cities, such as Moscow, on a warhead, on large cities, on industrial centers, dams, mineral deposits and so on, on a warhead, on large military bases, such as fleet bases, on a warhead, and that’s all, warheads will end. In most cities and all villages, absolutely nothing will happen; they learn about the past nuclear war from GO sirens and an emergency release of local television.
                  Quote: Alexey G
                  For example, working with lasers is noteworthy!

                  I agree, laser weapons are a promising thing, but there is a nuance.
                  The fatal flaw of such a weapon is its short range in the atmosphere, there is also a flaw that can be eliminated (by increasing power) but not yet overcome - a large required time for the destruction of an object. Therefore, it is ideally suited for the destruction of single low-speed objects without thermal protection, such as mines and drones, but is fundamentally unsuitable for the tasks of strategic missile defense in the atmosphere. Now, if you bring it into space ...
                  1. Alexey G 19 January 2020 01: 01 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Where did you get such numbers on warheads?
                    US Department of Defense has at its disposal 5800 nuclear warheads, according to the website of the Military-Industrial Courier newspaper, citing information from the American publication Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

                    According to updated data, we are talking about 1750 deployed shells, 2050 in reserve and another 2000 weapons awaiting dismantling.

                    Of the 1750 deployed warheads, it is estimated that 400 are for intercontinental ballistic missiles, 900 for submarines. Another 300 are located on the territory of American strategic bomber bases. In addition, 150 tactical munitions are stored at the Pentagon bases in Europe.

                    In general, the US nuclear arsenal is dispersed in 24 locations, including 11 US states and five European countries.

                    I immediately found such an option.
                    In addition, you do not take into account that Americans like to lie, because they completely do not have a Russian concept of conscience. So maybe there are more than announced.
                    Under the START III treaty, each deployed strategic bomber counts as one nuclear warhead [7]. The number of nuclear bombs and cruise missiles with a nuclear warhead that the deployed strategic bombers can carry is not taken into account.
                    Finally, you do not take into account that the forces of warheads are different. Ballistic missiles are one thing; submarines are another; bombers are the third.
                    in Russia 1100, the number of villages is 150000. Now explain how 1550 warheads destroy 160000 objects.

                    As of January 1 of this year, Russia numbered 15 cities, with a permanent population of 1 million or more. In all these 15 cities, almost 40 million people live. As of January 1, 2019, according to Rosstat, in Russia there were 146 permanent residents, the country ranks ninth in the world in terms of population. Around these cities there are still very populated areas. If a nuclear charge hits such a cluster, only 793 missiles can destroy 744 million people in Russia, that is, 15% !!! each ballistic missile is divided into blocks, although it is considered one unit. Satan has ten unguided warheads with a capacity of 70 kt each.
                    The American B-29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb (“Baby”) on the Japanese city of Hiroshima with the equivalent of 13 to 18 kilotons of TNT. Three days later, on August 9, 1945, an atomic bomb ("Fat Man") with the equivalent of 21 kilotons of TNT was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. The total number of deaths was from 90 to 166 thousand people in Hiroshima and from 60 to 80 thousand [. man is in Nagasaki. This is only 33 kilotons. What myths are there? Most of our people live in cities! And they will all be destroyed. There are only a few people living in villages. Have you been there for a long time? And besides, these units will die, because if the explosion does not kill them, then the notorious radiation! Remember Chernobyl? how many people died there after the accident and after it was liquidated? What myths are you talking about? In the American Trident 2 rocket, up to 8 W88 warheads with a capacity of 475 kt or up to 14 W76 with a capacity of 100 kt can be placed in the combat compartment.
                    One 475 kt unit will destroy Moscow! And there are 8 pieces. in one rocket.
                    Currently, 14 out of 18 Ohio-class submarines are armed with 24 Trident intercontinental ballistic missiles! What myths are there ???
                    what are you talking about?
                    1. poquello 19 January 2020 02: 34 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Alexey G
                      One 475 kt unit will destroy Moscow!

                      gee gee if flies
                    2. Passing 19 January 2020 21: 13 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Alexey G
                      Where did you get such numbers on warheads?

                      He was wrong, ignored the nuances of the contract, took an incorrect figure from it.
                      Quote: Alexey G
                      each deployed strategic bomber counts as one nuclear warhead. The number of nuclear bombs and cruise missiles with a nuclear warhead ... does not count.

                      Let's not play a spoiled phone, and immediately move on to the original sources:
                      https://www.state.gov/new-start-treaty-aggregate-numbers-of-strategic-offensive-arms-11/
                      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1606503
                      The deployed real warheads are precisely 1750. Not more. But if you count the bomber as one warhead, then for 2019 there will be a formal figure of 1376.
                      Quote: Alexey G
                      each ballistic missile is divided into blocks, although it is considered one unit

                      http://kremlin.ru/supplement/512
                      It is considered a carrier unit, not a warhead unit. The deployed warheads are still no more than 1750 pieces.
                      Quote: Alexey G
                      Remember Chernobyl? how many people died there after the accident and after it was liquidated?

                      Maximum, very hypothetical, 4000 people.
                      And in general, it is fundamentally wrong to equate infection from nuclear power plants and from a warhead. An air blast of a warhead, unlike a ground warhead, which will be in the vast majority of cases, in the radiation sense is not too dangerous.
                      https://www.spbgasu.ru/documents/docs_299.pdf
                      "an air explosion in the atmosphere at an altitude ... There is practically no radioactive contamination, with the exception of induced radiation in the soil in the region of the explosion"
                      Quote: Alexey G
                      The total number of deaths was from 90 to 166 thousand people in Hiroshima and from 60 to 80 thousand [. man is in Nagasaki. This is only 33 kilotons. What myths are there?

                      Not myths, but nuances, if the explosion of that bomb were in the center of the modern Russian city, then, firstly, the losses would be several times less, because our buildings seriously protect against damaging factors, unlike Japanese ones, and secondly , in the center it will not be, it will be focused on industrial zones of cities. A residential quarter may cover, may cover partially, or not cover at all. It depends on the layout of the city.
                      Quote: Alexey G
                      What myths are you talking about.? ...
                      One 475 kt unit will destroy Moscow! And there are 8 pieces. in one rocket.
                      Currently, 14 out of 18 Ohio-class submarines are armed with 24 Trident intercontinental ballistic missiles! What myths are there ???

                      I see here five myths wink
                      1) according to the source, now there are not 475ct, but 455ct
                      2) To carry out START-3 in Trident, the number of warheads was cut to 4 pieces.
                      3) For the same purposes, the number of launchers was reduced from 24 to 20
                      4) Currently, out of 14 boats, two in the cap. repair, and only eight to ten are on duty at one time.
                      5) And, finally, the principal one block 455kt has a radius of continuous destruction of buildings of about 3,5 km. This is an area of ​​38,5 sq. Km. The area of ​​Moscow is 2561 sq. Km. For the complete destruction of buildings in Moscow, 66 455kt warheads are needed.
                      Quote: Alexey G
                      Russia numbered 15 cities, with a permanent population of 1 million or more

                      Quote: Alexey G
                      Around these cities there are still very populated areas. If a nuclear charge hits such a cluster, only 15 missiles can destroy 70 million people in Russia, that is, 50% !!!

                      The numbers are sucked out of the finger. I cited the calculation above for 12 millionth Moscow, 15 sea missiles will not even completely destroy Moscow, even in the zone of continuous destruction, the living ones will surely remain, the metro, basements, shelters, simply well-standing strong buildings.
                      Quote: Alexey G
                      Most of our people live in cities! And they will all be destroyed.

                      The urban population of 105,3 million people lives in 1113 cities, of which 171 are cities with a population of more than 100 thousand people, of which 15 are cities of millionaires.
                      There are not enough warheads for the total destruction of cities. But, they may be enough, end-to-end, to destroy most of the residential areas.
                      There are deployed ballistic warheads of ~ 200pcs 455ct, 400 pcs. 300ct, 700pcs 90kt. and ~ 200 cruise missiles per 150kt.
                      Moscow alone needs 60+ of the most powerful warheads. Plus for ten million people. 200 have already been spent, 157 large cities have several more, say, at least two, and 500 have already been spent. If the others are one at a time, then another 941 warheads are needed. There are 1000 pieces, of which 900 are relatively low-power 90-150 ct. The radius of complete destruction for them is 2-2,5 km. Those. even a small town cannot be completely covered. However, the most powerful will not.
                      For example, a list of small cities from 100 thousand
                      http://www.terrus.ru/allrussia/g100.htm
                      find anyone on the Yandex map, and measure it with a ruler from the city center 2-2,5 km. Enough to cover only residential areas, without a suburb, such as the private sector and industrial zones.
                      Well, Americans have more or less destroyed residential blocks in every city. And what did they get from that? 70-90 million people were killed, but they didn’t kill potential, they only pissed us off! Energy, infrastructure, industry, agriculture, the army and navy, all strategic reserves, everything has survived! Even the personnel of all these sectors will probably survive, for they will be in the workplace! This is nonsense, no one in their right mind will wage a nuclear war like that, they will hammer it precisely by their potential, and not by people! Therefore, all these warheads will be smeared with a thin layer over countless objects of raw materials and processing industry, at power plants, at fuel infrastructure, at civilian and military depots, military bases, command posts, airfields, strategic nuclear forces deployment areas, etc. and so on. Of course, it will fly to cities, but indirectly, when an important object is located in the city itself or nearby.
                      Quote: Alexey G
                      There are few in the villages

                      https://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/perepis2010/croc/Documents/Vol1/pub-01-04.pdf
                      The rural population is 37,5 million people, lives in 133686 snp.
                      Those. they will not even try to bomb them. 40 million will not suffer guaranteed. At least hunger will not threaten us. Yes, and a huge human mob reserve.
                      1. Alexey G 19 January 2020 22: 51 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You're crazy!!! Who generally puts pluses to this nonsense?
                        The deployed real warheads are precisely 1750. Not more.

                        Do you believe in these numbers ?? War is the art of deception. Are you always so gullible or just a fool?
                        According to START 3, there was no unified point of view regarding the principle of accounting for nuclear charges on ballistic missiles equipped with homing missiles. Modern missiles of this type can carry up to 14 charges (UGM-133A). The US delegation proposed to include in the discussion only those charges that are on each individual rocket at a given time, while in previous agreements for any "standby" rocket of any type a priori the number of warheads with which it was tested was recorded [39] . Thus, there were fears that the charges stored would not fall within the scope of the contract and could subsequently be mounted on missiles and put on alert. Thus, the contract does not solve the problem of “return potential”. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%9D%D0%92-III
                        From article XIV of the treaty and the unilateral statement of the President of Russia, which is an integral part of the treaty, it follows that “the qualitative and quantitative buildup of the capabilities of US missile defense systems” falls into the category of “exceptional circumstances that threaten the highest interests of the Russian Federation” and is the basis for Russia’s withdrawal from the contract. Text of the START Treaty (Russian) (Neopr.)? (April 8, 2010). Date of treatment April 17, 2010. Archived on August 14, 2011.
                        That is, we can just get out of this so-called contract and all your calculations down the drain!
                        An air blast of a warhead, unlike a ground warhead, which will be in the vast majority of cases, in the radiation sense is not too dangerous. There is practically no radioactive contamination, with the exception of induced radiation in the soil in the region of the explosion. "

                        This is Pearl Above all!
                        “An explosion on the earth’s surface causes more radioactive fallout, because it will cause dust to fly into the air. The damaging effect depends on whether it rains and where the wind blows. When a bomb explodes in 1 Mt, the fallout can cover up to 2600 sq. Km. " ttps: //www.krugosvet.ru/enc/nauka_i_tehnika/voennaya_tehnika/VONA_YADERNAYA.html.
                        U
                        GM-133A "Trident-II" D5 up to 8 W88 (475 ct) or up to 14 W76 (100 ct)
                        I don’t know where you dug about 4 warheads there! https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/. Wiki about Americans is not lying.
                        475 ct X 8 = 3800 ct or 3,8 megatons.
                        In principle, one 455ct block has a radius of continuous destruction of buildings of about 3,5 km. This is an area of ​​38,5 sq. Km. The area of ​​Moscow is 2561 sq. Km. For the complete destruction of buildings in Moscow, 66 455kt warheads are needed.

                        1 MT NUCLEAR DESTRUCTION
                        Strong destruction of reinforced concrete buildings. Moderate destruction of road and rail facilities. 3,2–4,8 km.
                        Severe damage to brick buildings. 3rd degree burns. 6,4–8 km.
                        Severe damage to buildings with a wooden frame. 2nd degree burns. 8–9,6 km.
                        Source ttps: //www.krugosvet.ru/enc/nauka_i_tehnika/voennaya_tehnika/VONA_YADERNAYA.html.
                        So two blocks are one megaton and they will destroy 8km of brick houses!
                        And radiation will cover 2600 square meters. km The area of ​​Moscow is 2561 sq. Km. Everyone else will die from radiation! Yes, they will not burn out immediately, but they will die from radiation not from one, but from two 475ct blocks. And this is important, because Trident has not 2 blocks, but 8! What will be the amount of radiation then ?? And yes, the blocks may not be thrown right into the Kremlin, for example, they will be thrown along the edges of the metropolis in order to destroy everything in a circle and infect everything inside with radiation!
                        And here you have a snack:
                        As a result of a large-scale nuclear war, a climatic catastrophe will occur. With nuclear explosions, cities and forests catch fire, odnaks of radioactive dust will envelop the Earth with an impenetrable blanket, which will inevitably lead to a sharp drop in temperature near the earth's surface. After nuclear explosions with a total force of 10 MT in the central regions of the continents of the Northern Hemisphere, the temperature will drop to minus 000 ° C. The temperature of the world's oceans will remain above 31 ° C, but severe storms will occur due to the large temperature difference. Then, a few months later, sunlight will erupt to Earth, but apparently rich in ultraviolet light due to the destruction of the ozone layer. By this time, the death of crops, forests, animals and hungry pestilence of people will already occur. It is hard to expect that somewhere on Earth at least some human community will survive. good
                      2. Passing 20 January 2020 17: 59 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        I don’t see any reason in repeating the arguments based on the primary sources in a circle, because you ignore them, forming your vision from the meager “corrupted phone” details, I only want to clarify that the overwhelming number of explosions will be airborne, I’m not happy. infection, because a terrestrial one with a happy infection is ineffective for irretrievable destruction of potential, because the radius of destruction drops sharply, and the deadly radiation from a ground explosion is a thing that leaves very quickly, will decrease by 1000 times in two weeks, and by 10000 times in three months, i.e. in the epicenter it will be possible to arrange absolutely safe excursions, in respirators of course. And another point, fragmented infection with long-lived isotopes will reduce the average life expectancy of certain groups of people, but this is not critical for the country's potential, because before they die from cancer, they will have time and children to work and work in a radioactive plant for ten or two years, and there children will grow up to replace them ...
                        PS: to the heap, a very useful service - a visual assessment of the scale and impact factors of a nuclear explosion:
                        https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
                        there are Surface and Radioactive fallout checkboxes, play with them, useful for a general understanding.
                      3. Alexey G 20 January 2020 23: 10 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You are an amazingly stubborn person! But you are also a terrific cynic! This is just some kind of fascism no less!
                        for the country's potential, this is not critical at all, because before they die from cancer, they will have time to have children and work in a radioactive plant for a dozen or two years, and then the children will grow up to replace them ...

                        You know that irradiated parents give birth to freaks, corpses, and simply miscarriages ... Modern women are treated for a long time or do IVF to conceive and give birth, how do you think infected and sick people can give birth in thin nature with radiation and mutations ?? ?
                        Who you are? Passing, if you are so sorry for nobody? Why are you justifying a nuclear nightmare? Do you want everyone to die?
                        What primary sources are you talking about? My father served in the chemical forces for the last 7 years of service! He told me in detail what and how will happen if it happens.
                        the vast majority of explosions will be air

                        Why are you sure about this ?? There are charges aimed at destroying people, and there are those that destroy potential.
                        з
                        and two weeks it will decrease by 1000 times, and in three months by 10000 times, i.e. in the epicenter it will be possible to arrange absolutely safe excursions, in respirators of course.
                        Would you go on an excursion to Hiroshima or Chernobyl with a respirator
                        in 3 months!
                        The worst thing in a nuclear explosion is not a shock wave, but radiation that will poison and kill all living things!
                        Well, PS: Americans have withdrawn from the agreement on medium-range missiles and will now be able to slap a bunch of nuclear weapons for these missiles, which will cover our entire country, since American bases are everywhere! Your favorite START3 will not be affected!
                        In addition: “At the same time, according to the chairman of the Russian State Duma’s defense committee Vladimir Shamanov, Moscow has serious doubts about Washington’s fulfillment of START-3 commitments. Shamanov noted that Russia has not received confirmation of the conversion of launchers Trident II missiles and B-52M heavy bombers. The main issues of the Russian side relate to the re-equipment of part of the US strategic offensive arms. As Vladimir Putin noted during a meeting with leaders x Russian media January 11, 2018, the United States should verify the changes so that Russia can verify that there is no return potential for some media. The absence of such evidence in Moscow is a concern. According to Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov, dialogue". https://topwar.ru/136454-chto-rossiya-i-ssha-sokratili-po-dogovoru-snv-3.html. Read this article! You'll like it!
                      4. Passing 21 January 2020 00: 22 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Alexey G
                        You are an amazingly stubborn person!

                        Not me, facts.
                        Quote: Alexey G
                        Who are you?

                        The voice of a clear mind? repeat
                        Quote: Alexey G
                        how do you think infected and sick people will be able to give offspring in nature thinned by radiation and mutations ???

                        The experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki says that there are no special problems with the offspring.
                        The experience of Chernobyl says that nature flourishes, and mutations are practically absent.
                        Quote: Alexey G
                        Hiroshima ... The worst thing in a nuclear explosion is not a shock wave, but radiation that will poison and kill all life!

                        only facts:
                        http://elib.biblioatom.ru/text/deystvie-atomnoy-bomby-v-yaponii_1960/go,102/
                        Quote: Alexey G
                        Do you want everyone to die?

                        I want everyone to live.
                        That is why I am for increasing the number of warheads to sufficient for the apocalypse. And START-3 provokes a nuclear war, makes the losses from it acceptable.
                      5. Alexey G 21 January 2020 01: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        No, you are misinterpreting the facts and provoking war with such speeches!
                      6. Alexey G 21 January 2020 01: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        According to your sources, in Rosatom 100 thousand in Japan died only from the action of 35 kt !!! A quarter of the population in two cities from weak bombs! Are you few? Is this not an apocalypse? All normal people think enough!
                      7. Odysseus 21 January 2020 08: 12 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Passing by
                        That is why I am for increasing the number of warheads to sufficient for the apocalypse. And START-3 provokes a nuclear war, makes the losses from it acceptable.

                        I read your calculations. That's right. Congratulations, you are a smart person. Most people still believe in the myths of "nuclear winter", "apocalypse," etc.
                        Moreover, from a technical point of view, you even exaggerated the effectiveness of nuclear weapons. In reality, most missiles are aimed at each other (that is, if one hits the other, it will not fly out), the mines are located in extremely sparsely populated areas, in case of mass launch there will be a decent percentage of failures, several missiles will be shot down by missile defense, etc. However, in your reasoning, there is, IMHO, one significant flaw. Not technical, but political.
                        NW-dangerous not in itself, but that disorganization which she will cause in a modern urbanized society.
                        The United States is now the Leviathan state, which rests only on the monstrous power of the police and tax apparatus, and the parasitic state, which exists due to the gigantic consumption of goods from countries of the 3rd world. Remember the uprising in Fergusson? As soon as the repressive apparatus weakened for 1 day, chaos began. Now imagine if at least 30 warheads fall into such a state. 10 - at the ports where goods are imported, 10 - at the main banking centers, 5 - at the places where the American elite lives. 5 - at the largest nuclear power plants. Full chaos will begin. The number of victims from which will significantly exceed the number of victims from nuclear weapons.
                        And then the American billionaire didn’t give a damn whether America and the Americans would live, whether it would be actual for him whether he himself would live. So for him, and 1 warhead alone is unacceptable.
                        RF is not as atomized and individualized as the USA, although it is going in the same direction. The elite also thinks only of itself. But unlike the United States, Russia is used as a cash cow, capital and personnel flow from here. But we have our own problems, we have a cold, industry has been destroyed, and the state apparatus is extremely weak and corrupt. In our case, it’s enough to hit Moscow in the winter (control center), the largest oil and gas fields or oil refineries and the largest power plants. As a result, the number of victims will be many times higher than the number of victims from nuclear weapons themselves, and the country is breaking up.
                      8. Passing 21 January 2020 15: 35 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        As for the United States, I partially agree, but chaos will occur only in large cities. In tens of thousands of small towns, local government is very strong, everything is in sight, it is not possible to feel anonymous impunity, order will be preserved there.
                        About the winter factor is a fresh and important thought. I am sure it was envisioned in the days of the USSR, there were strategic fuel reserves, mothballed production capacities, and now, I am also sure that there are no such reserves, because private and self-interested interest is also in the state. "Optimization" has long eaten up. As it turns out very badly ...
                      9. Odysseus 22 January 2020 02: 58 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Passing by
                        As for the United States, I partially agree, but chaos will occur only in large cities. In tens of thousands of small towns, local government is very strong, everything is in sight, it is not possible to feel anonymous impunity, order will be preserved there.

                        True, in general, life in the United States and even statehood will continue. But the role of the United States as the hegemon of the cap. The bottom line is that capitalism is as beneficial to the US as it is disadvantageous to Russia. They consume disproportionately more than they produce, their strength is in a unique position at the top of the “food chain.” After the exchange and the Fed cease to exist, all the freebies end, yesterday's faithful vassals (such as Germany or Japan) immediately turn away, in America itself “war of all against all.” Actually, even 2-3 insignificant warheads of Kim Jong-un are capable of causing America economic harm infinitely greater than the hypothetical benefit of the destruction of the DPRK.
                        Quote: Passing by
                        I am sure it was envisaged in the days of the USSR, there were strategic fuel reserves, mothballed production capacities,

                        It was envisaged, and most importantly, the civil defense system was developed. There was a centralized support system (including in case of emergency), and there was a duplication of governance structures (conditionally, if all the authorities, led by Brezhnev, would have died during the war, the centralized administration of the country would not have stopped would). Now this is nothing.
                        I won’t say exactly for the whole country, but in order to destroy life in modern Moscow in winter, 5 warheads (3 in the center: Presidential Administration, Lubyanka, Ministry of Defense, General Staff) 1 at Ostankino, and another at the Kapotnya refinery and TPP-22 are enough. And all, the 15 million population of Moscow will begin a convulsive chaotic flight, without control and food. The victims of this will be an order of magnitude more than actually from radiation and destruction. And left without a decisive center, regional barons (like Kadyrov) will immediately begin to escape as they can, thinking only about your interests.
          2. Alexey G 20 January 2020 00: 35 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            There are still no more than 1750 warheads.

            Let's even say that? And what is the power of these charges? 100ct? 1Mt? 2mt? This is how you say it fundamentally? Can I have 1750 charges of 400ct, and can I have 800ct? What about dirty bombs that emit more radiation?
            The agreement is designed for 10 years with a possible extension by mutual agreement of the parties for 5 years [2]. And what will happen next? Unknown?
            What about deploying nuclear weapons in space? The treaty does not say about this and the cosmos is unknownly armed or not.
    3. poquello 19 January 2020 02: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Alexey G
      They will kill us all 10 times, well, and we probably all 6 of them too.

      oh, do not whistle, the Americans have already figured out where to fly — to us, in the best case for them, 10%, and to them in the worst case for us 80% of the arsenal
      1. Alexey G 19 January 2020 11: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Read what it is about first! We are not talking about missile defense capabilities, but about the effect of nuclear weapons on humans in principle! My interlocutor claims that nuclear war will not be worse than World War II. I do not agree...
        1. poquello 19 January 2020 17: 05 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Alexey G
          Read what it is about first! We are not talking about missile defense capabilities, but about the effect of nuclear weapons on humans in principle! My interlocutor claims that nuclear war will not be worse than World War II. I do not agree...

          yes, it will be cold - we don’t need it
  • JD1979 18 January 2020 14: 38 New
    • 8
    • 6
    +2
    military expert Alexei Khlopotov.

    Hmm ...
    The Lekalo is suitable for any 125 mm gun of all the tanks in service today.

    Well, just Cap! Still, a 125mm shell would not fit the 125mm gun for which it was created.
    And among such universal ammunition "Lekalo" out of competition.

    Shta ?! belay Expert, what are you smoking there? BOPS - universal? Hand face...
    This is enough to defeat the American M1A2 Abrams modern modifications

    In a distant, distant galaxy, in the distant, distant 1990, the modification M1A1NA +, and then the first M1A2 received a modified armor ...
    Tower: 900 mm from OBPS
    1400 mm from the COP,
    Case: 650mm from OBPS
    1000mm from the cop.
    Someone needs to be awarded the Pinnokio Prize.
    No, I certainly understand why you are boiling. The fact that buyers of tanks can read and think a little, and with Mango, nobody needs tanks from the word at all, which is a big sadness. Still, they are bought to destroy enemy tanks and not to scratch that paint and make laugh. So I had to somehow dodge and give out at least something sane ... yeah until 1990. After 30 years, broadcast this ... this is an epic success on the contrary.
    This year, the Russian military department began the purchase of the latest armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles 3BM44 "Lekalo"

    The development of this ammunition has been conducted since 1991, in use since about 1997 and call it the latest shell ....
    1. Artemiy_2 18 January 2020 15: 08 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Tower: 900 mm from OBPS
      1400 mm from the COP,
      Case: 650mm from OBPS
      1000mm from the cop.

      Are the numbers from the ceiling taken?
      1. Sky strike fighter 18 January 2020 16: 32 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Artemiy_2
        Tower: 900 mm from OBPS
        1400 mm from the COP,
        Case: 650mm from OBPS
        1000mm from the cop.

        Are the numbers from the ceiling taken?

        Here is more about booking various modifications of Abrams in the form of a diagram.
        The diagram shows the areas in which protection is provided (at -20 °) equivalent to 700 mm of steel (from BPS).
        In the basic (American) configuration, the level is achieved on an area of ​​less than 20%
        In the Swedish version - 70%.
        In general, it is possible to note rather large weakened zones of the M1A2 Abrams tank turret.

        http://btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/armor_sweeden.htm
    2. poquello 19 January 2020 02: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: JD1979
      No, I certainly understand why you are boiling. Since tank buyers still know how to read and think a little, and with Mango, nobody really needs tanks from the word,

      nafig nafig, to the Professor, this "absolutely" makes up a decent export portfolio
  • Svetlana 18 January 2020 14: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Ros 56
    Begin to prepare?

    No, we are not starting. Always prepared.
    "We are peaceful people,
    But our armored train,
    Standing on a reserve road. "
  • Victor March 47 18 January 2020 15: 00 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: bessmertniy
    It's nice that there is a good shell for hunting "Abrams"! winked

    The best projectile for Abrams is the Voivode. Take away one hundred thousand beatings.
  • 123456789 18 January 2020 15: 38 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1

    Abrams burn like sparklers
    1. Vadim237 18 January 2020 16: 59 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      At 0 44 ATGM Metis M1 in the forehead Abrams did not strike.
    2. mvg
      mvg 18 January 2020 18: 49 New
      • 5
      • 5
      0
      Abrams burn like sparklers

      Ciferka, you yourself see what you spread? wassat Hit, but do not burn. Why then write garbage? This is the best advertisement for Abrashek ... Yeah .. "mother bought a conic, and a conic without a leg," and in this case, without a head.
  • rocket757 18 January 2020 15: 39 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Need to change the old shell? Is a new shell better? If so, then you need to change and take!
    1. Vadim237 18 January 2020 16: 53 New
      • 3
      • 5
      -2
      This shell is obsolete both physically and mentally - 650 mm of armor from 2000 meters to defeat light armored vehicles is just the thing, but the forehead of modern Western tanks is too tough for him. Here, either to create a new shell with a length of 740 mm, since a large BOPS in the AZ will not fit in or a powder propellant charge is more powerful to do, but this is already increased wear of the gun.
      1. rocket757 18 January 2020 17: 16 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        If a linear tank confrontation is planned, then it is necessary to have a shell for hitting the frontal armor of enemy tanks at a distance greater than theirs. On the other hand, there are other means of fighting the enemy’s main tank, there are many!
        It is no longer necessary to expect that numerous tank duels will be carried out!
        If there is still a conflict, what kind of hostilities can there be? Linear confrontation or something else?
  • Hog
    Hog 18 January 2020 18: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I hope 2k is not limited, it's time to change Mango.
  • mvg
    mvg 18 January 2020 18: 44 New
    • 6
    • 6
    0
    "Pattern" is 23 years old. Remember, let it be srach. The next speech pushed the GDP for 2 hours (the most speaking president), and they got a shell from stashes. If only the people did not get bored at the weekend.
  • Crimean partisan 1974 18 January 2020 18: 52 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Yes, I am surprised at the inventors of the wheel. it is asked, why do you need all these mango-shmango, priests and patterns when there is a KUV line? Reflex, all the more so Invar UR has several mods from a godfather to a high-explosive mine, to which you can run a carousel with all sorts of crowbars and armor-piercing guns when there is an effective distance of 3 times with a KuVA exceeds any classics, stream production adjustment will significantly reduce the cost of a product, which member didn’t put a DLC in 40 years of mastering tank KUVs ??? but it’s stupid to have KUV when no one else has stuffed BC tanks with all kinds of junk
    1. prodi 18 January 2020 19: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      cumulative, very likely, is taken by active defense, and scrap, only theoretically
      1. Crimean partisan 1974 18 January 2020 20: 17 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        cumulative, very likely, is taken by active defense, ..... active defense, only if you forget about military security. without combat guards, armored vehicles are a corpse, and combat guards are living people. read that active protection and distance emit, it’s dangerous for a living person, and crowbars often bounce off, because factors, barrel wear, barrel bending, barrel temperature, barrel lead-out are atmospheric conditions and constant adjustment, there’s no such shorter haemorrhage, yes and so, for example, KUV with UR Invar has a high-explosive variant in the face value, and if it is intercepted by active defense it will be no more than 15 meters from the tank, and 19 kg of a high-explosive mine ........ will blow away everything on board
        1. prodi 19 January 2020 09: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          and what, in principle, can be foot combat protection in the field? Their effectiveness in real assistance to the car is 200m, conditionally. There are exactly two situations: either they are hiding behind the armor, or they are clearing something a hundred meters from it, in addition, I do not see much difference for the infantry that is being crowded near it: whether the flying ammunition intercepted by active protection at a distance, or explode on the machine itself.
          As for the BOPS ricochets, they work even better on inclined armors than on vertical ones.
          About the radiation of active protection radars, you are thickening, their detection distance is small, so that the radiation should not be very much larger than ordinary road radars
          1. Crimean partisan 1974 19 January 2020 20: 00 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            About the emission of active protection radars, you are exaggerating .... it's unlikely that road radars are not radars, but detectors that react to movement in the optical or infrared range (or both), these are passive systems, with small EPR they don’t cope. for such purposes, there are active millimeter-range radar systems, which is very dangerous for biological life, hence the trick to activate or not. and at the expense of military security you are in vain, the help to the crews is very huge .....
            As for the BOPS ricochets, they work even better on inclined armor ... this is a controversial remark, along the way I pointed out in the comments the reasons why BOPS cannot be agreed upon by TTX suppliers, it all depends on the barrel and so on and so on, all the more effective range of more than 2000 meters is not achieved, unlike tank KUV and ATGM
    2. Vadim237 19 January 2020 11: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Probably because Western armored vehicles and Abrams are starting to set up systems for intercepting anti-tank shells.
  • Alexey from Perm 18 January 2020 20: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    only real battle can show real value
    1. cat Rusich 18 January 2020 22: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      As an option, buy tanks of a “likely enemy” and test our weapons on them. With our tanks, too, conduct such tests in order to understand the real, and not the "theoretical" defense of our armored vehicles.
  • Alexey G 18 January 2020 21: 42 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Alexey G
    Yes, I agree with you. I wanted to say it myself. Only aboard can Abrash beat with Lekal. And here he is Our tanks of obsolete models can beat in the forehead from a decent distance. Only perhaps the T90 breakthrough and Armata could stand in the forehead.

    That's why there are so many minuses? Well, it’s not cheers patriotic, but it's not my fault that it is like that!
    1. Alexey from Perm 18 January 2020 22: 35 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Hooray-patriots is the misfortune of Russia.
  • cat Rusich 18 January 2020 22: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Mango, Lead, Vacuum ... Pattern. During the Second World War, the guaranteed defeat of enemy tanks (at least Germans, at least USSR tanks) was achieved by INCREASING CALIBER! It made sense to make the armata immediately with a caliber of 152mm, the amount of ammunition makes sense only if the enemy is guaranteed to be defeated ... many "small-caliber charges" will not penetrate the armor (or the PPE is also the "armor"). Tankers will have to win about Lekalo as in WWII by maneuver, well-aimed fire and well-thought-out tactics and strategy (learning to win before the war, and not along the way).
    1. poquello 19 January 2020 02: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: cat Rusich
      Mango, Lead, Vacuum ... Pattern. During the Second World War, the guaranteed defeat of enemy tanks (at least Germans, at least USSR tanks) was achieved by INCREASING CALIBER! It made sense to make the armata immediately with a caliber of 152mm, the amount of ammunition makes sense only if the enemy is guaranteed to be defeated ... many "small-caliber charges" will not penetrate the armor (or the PPE is also the "armor"). Tankers will have to win about Lekalo as in WWII by maneuver, well-aimed fire and well-thought-out tactics and strategy (learning to win before the war, and not along the way).

      tanks are not required to destroy a tank column
      1. cat Rusich 19 January 2020 03: 18 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Let's start from afar. At first, there was no OFS in Abrams BC. Who was going to fight Abrams? BOPS needs a tank (any tank) in case of meeting with another tank. Count on the destruction of enemy tanks in columns ... War 08.08.08/34/76. the Georgian army did not stop the convoy of the Russian army with a blow from the flank. Tanks increased the caliber of their guns only in order to guarantee guaranteed destruction of enemy tanks, otherwise why did the T-34-85 turn into the T?
        1. poquello 19 January 2020 17: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: cat Rusich
          Let's start from afar. At first, there was no OFS in Abrams BC. Who was going to fight Abrams? BOPS needs a tank (any tank) in case of meeting with another tank. Count on the destruction of enemy tanks in columns ... War 08.08.08/34/76. the Georgian army did not stop the convoy of the Russian army with a blow from the flank. Tanks increased the caliber of their guns only in order to guarantee guaranteed destruction of enemy tanks, otherwise why did the T-34-85 turn into the T?

          let's start, the history of frontal booking is perfectly shown in the panther of the Second World War, smoke
          1. Sergey10789 20 January 2020 09: 13 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yeah. But before acquiring a 85 mm gun, the t -34 acquired a 57 mm gun, which replaced 76 mm.
            1. poquello 20 January 2020 19: 07 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Sergey10789
              Yeah. But before acquiring a 85 mm gun, the t -34 acquired a 57 mm gun, which replaced 76 mm.

              so the Fritz guns on the tanks were weak, the main knockout was pt-calculations
    2. Sergey10789 20 January 2020 09: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
    3. Sergey10789 20 January 2020 10: 28 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Dear! Stop smoking Prokopenko’s hair - there is a lot of coke in them!) Let’s put a 308mm mortar into the “shame”!) Why, increase it, increase it!) For your information, the pierced shells are affected by the initial velocity, strength and angle meeting. Let me remind you that the main tank of the Wehrmacht were Pz-III and Pz-IV. With which, apart from artillery and tanks, Fri-guns fought. The caliber was not increased due to poor penetration of small calibers, but because more explosives could be inserted into a larger-caliber shell projectile, which was VERY relevant!) Well, due to the fact that a powerful mine was still needed today, an increase in caliber to increase penetration is relevant today only for cumulative shells. AND ALL !!! Why build up the caliber of the gun ?! What would a 152-caliber cannon shoot with a 30mm diameter sub-caliber crowbar ?!
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. poquello 20 January 2020 18: 56 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Sergey10789
        Dear! Stop smoking Prokopenko’s hair - there is a lot of coke in them!) Let’s put a 308mm mortar into the “shame”!) Why, increase it, increase it!) For your information, the pierced shells are affected by the initial velocity, strength and angle meeting. Let me remind you that the main tank of the Wehrmacht were Pz-III and Pz-IV. With which, apart from artillery and tanks, Fri-guns fought. The caliber was not increased due to poor penetration of small calibers, but because more explosives could be inserted into a larger-caliber shell projectile, which was VERY relevant!) Well, due to the fact that a powerful mine was still needed today, an increase in caliber to increase penetration is relevant today only for cumulative shells. AND ALL !!! Why build up the caliber of the gun ?! What would a 152-caliber cannon shoot with a 30mm diameter sub-caliber crowbar ?!

        that's right, IPs were used to destroy the fortifications
      3. cat Rusich 20 January 2020 21: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        T-6 Tiger Why did the Germans put 8,8cm KwK 36 L / 56 on it? - on the T-5 Panther there was a 7,5 cm KwK 42 and that was enough ... Guaranteed defeat in my understanding - with almost any hit by a BOPS in a tank - breaking. In the BOPS 152mm, the crowbar will be 40mm in diameter. Abrams M1 began in 1980 with the M68A1 - 105mm rifled gun (modernized British L7), M256 - 120mm smoothbore gun (aka German Rh-120) appeared in 1985. Why did the Americans put a larger caliber gun? - after all, penetration is affected by the initial velocity of the projectile, its strength and angle of meeting ... Merkava Mk 1 in 1979 started the same with a rifled M68 105mmmm, and in 1990 Merkava Mk3 already with a smooth-bore MG251 120mm.
        1. Sergey10789 20 January 2020 22: 58 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Damn friend. Firstly, the Americans changed the abrashka to a rifled gun for a smoothbore gun, and they have slightly different principles and indicators, and I am far from thinking that the increase in caliber was dictated by the fact that it was necessary to increase the armor penetration of the BPS. With sub-caliber shells, the length of the flight has a greater significance than the caliber, or rather the ratio of the length of the flight to the caliber, and that is why it makes no sense to make an awesome large-caliber gun — this is inevitably a hello to an increase in the length of the projectile, and it is limited by the inside of the tank and arrangement) in order to accelerate the projectile more it is necessary to increase the mass of gunpowder, and due to the fact that there are restrictions on the length ... well ... God bless him ... also a so-so reason ... Or maybe they wanted to increase the armor penetration of the cumulative shell ?! Or a lot of buckshot in the card ?! It seems to be more like the truth. This time. Second: all the pancake is trying to reduce the scrap section, so that to achieve high armor penetration rates, and you want to increase the cross section. Well then, all those who increased the caliber did not increase to the size of coastal guns ?;
          1. cat Rusich 20 January 2020 23: 55 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The transition to a smooth barrel is explained by: 1) an increase in the speed of the shot, 2) the use of cumulative shots that are harmful to rotation, 3) simply increase the caliber. The thickness of the "crowbar" in the BOPS is directly proportional to the caliber of the BOPS - the ratio (I write it as a memory) is 1/4, the diameter of the scrap is 30 mm per caliber 125 mm - we increase the caliber - the thickness of the "crowbar" increases. What for ? - increase the mass of the “crowbar”, otherwise we increase the length of the “crowbar” (as an option for BOPS “Vacuum” and “Slate”). Why even increase the cross-section (diameter) of the core in an armor-piercing shot? - as an example, cartridges for PTR - started with a caliber of 7,92 mm, for example, the MSS-41 cartridge 7,92X94 mm. PTR of the USSR PTRD and PTRS are already chambered for 14,5X114mm. Increased the caliber - as well as increased the caliber of anti-tank guns. A further increase in the caliber of tank guns is quite real - read the news about the development in the West of tank guns in caliber 130-140mm. Today, tank guns with a caliber of 130-140mm are just prototypes, and tomorrow?
    4. Sergey10789 20 January 2020 13: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Dear! Stop smoking Prokopenko’s hair - there are a lot of poisons in them!) Let’s put a 308mm mortar into the “shame”!) Che there, increase it, increase it!) For your information, the pierced shell is affected by the initial velocity, its strength and meeting angle. Let me remind you that the main tank of the Wehrmacht were Pz-III and Pz-IV. With which, apart from artillery and tanks, Fri-guns fought. The caliber was not increased due to poor penetration of small calibers, but because more explosives could be inserted into a larger-caliber shell projectile, which was VERY relevant!) Well, due to the fact that a powerful mine was still needed today, an increase in caliber to increase penetration is relevant today only for cumulative shells. AND ALL !!! Why build up the caliber of the gun ?! What would a 152-caliber cannon shoot with a 30mm diameter sub-caliber crowbar ?!
  • Vasyan1971 19 January 2020 05: 17 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    “In February 2019, Khlopotov stated that“ if what Kharkovites are doing with the T-64BV is called a “tank for the poor,” then the “famous” Russian T-72B3s in their mass configuration are generally a “tank for the poor.” "
    https://m.lenta.ru/news/2020/01/18/proikalo/amp/
  • 73bor 19 January 2020 15: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In my 650mm armor penetration this is pretty small for a modern projectile.
  • smaug78 19 January 2020 18: 03 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    GRAU index of the 3BM44 projectile in Mango. The yellow Izvestia again deceived us.
  • lvov_aleksey 19 January 2020 20: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    more than once wanted, but no one to answer unfortunately
  • Zaurbek 19 January 2020 23: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl2JEcm26dI
  • Sergey10789 20 January 2020 09: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes, you leave these wet fantasies about meetings of tanks of the Russian Federation and NATO. Leave these fantasies about hordes of "armatures" and the installation of 152 mm guns on them. And enough to believe the agitation of domestic pseudoscientific programs about "lured" on the abrams and that it will certainly ricochet there!) As children, I swear! There are no fools in the world, and if there are, then there are few of them that would bring the matter to collisions of Russian tanks and US tanks.
  • Warthog 20 January 2020 10: 49 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    I understand that few people can get into the GRAU directory.
    However, if this is nevertheless done, then SUDDENLY turns out the following:

    BOPS Mango has the code for the 3VBM17 shot (a projectile with a charge), 3BM42 — the index of the active part, and SUDDENLY — 3BM44 — the index of the projectile itself.
    The notorious "curve", not accepted into service, has a 3BM44M shell code.

    Further, a simple search for where the legs grow gives the following:
    http://forumuploads.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/2496/41603.jpg

    3BM44 and 4ZH63 - this is the usual composition of the 3BBM17 Mango shot.

    And you continue to suck the fried news from the narrow-minded journalism.