No miracle is foreseen. The potential of the praised BOPS ZBM-44 “Lekalo” in tank duels with “Abrams”


Undoubtedly one of the most discussed in the military-analytical sector of the Runet News over the past week has become information about the conclusion of a contract between JSC “NIMI them. V.V. Bakhireva "and the Russian Defense Ministry for the supply of tank Russian Armed Forces troops 125 mm armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells ZBM-44 (ZBM-42M) "Lekalo", which in the future should completely replace the obsolete BOPs of the ZBM-42 "Mango" type, replenishing the ammunition of smooth-bore tank guns of the 2A46M (D-81TM) family back in the late distant 80s.


And this is not surprising, because there is a cardinal inconsistency of expert opinions on this event, which is due to far from the best physicochemical and physicomechanical parameters of the Lekala tungsten core in comparison with M829A2 / A3 / E4 American armor-piercing feathered subcaliber shells depleted uranium.

The capabilities of armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells ZBM-44 "Lekalo" are limited by the ability to confidently defeat MBT "Leopard-2A4" and M1A1HA modifications of 1988


In particular, despite the fact that the density of tungsten is 1,014 times higher than the density of depleted uranium (19,3 versus 19,03 g / cm), and the melting point is 3387 ° C versus 1130 ° C, the latter boasts a unique physicochemical property - pyrophoricity, which is the spontaneous combustion of uranium dust (pyrophorns) of a decaying core at the moment of collision with the outer surface of the armored barrier, as well as during the further passage of the core and its fragments through the physical dimension of the armor plate.

Being a chemically active f-element of the periodic system, depleted uranium enters an exothermic reaction with the armor of the affected object with the further formation of stable intermetallic compounds. This process is accompanied by the release of much more heat than in the case of a tungsten core. As a result, there is a 10-15% increase in armor penetration of cores made of op-amps compared to conventional tungsten “crowbars” of kinetic action, and this despite the similarity of their kinetic parameters, core elongation coefficients, as well as ballistic characteristics of applied smooth-bore or rifled tank guns .

Conclusion: while the ZBM-44 Lekalo, advertised by military expert Alexei Khlopotov, developed in 1991, has armor penetration of the order of 650-670 mm at a distance of 2000 m and at an angle of 0 degrees to the normal (300-330 mm at a similar distance at an angle of 60 degrees to normal), the US M829A2 and M829A3 armor-piercing shells that have already entered service with the U.S. Army can boast of 740 and 770-800 mm armor-piercing, not to mention the most advanced M829E4 BPSs, capable of piercing up to 850-900 mm of steel equivalent at a distance 2000-2500 m. And here in the question arises: will the aforementioned armor penetration of 650–670 millimeters provide the tank battalions of the coastal forces of the Russian Navy, as well as the tank and motorized rifle units of the Russian NE, parity in hypothetical “tank duels” with mechanized units of the ground forces of the NATO member states that have M1A2 SEP v2 / MBT 3 and Challenger 2? After all, it was precisely this that the expert Alexei Khlopotov tried to convince the audience of numerous domestic military-analytical portals, focusing on the ability of the ZBM-42 “Lekalo” to “crack open the M1A2 MBT armor protection”.

As you know, the physical size of the frontal armor plates of the towers of the main battle tanks M1A1HA + / D and M1A2 of the early versions (beginning of the 90s) is represented by “special fillers” from AD95 corundum ceramics and UO2 100nd generation uranoceramics, which provide equivalent resistance from BOPS of about 880— 900 mm. The upper frontal part (VLD), located at an angle of 83 ° and having a physical dimension of 50 to 80 mm, makes it possible to achieve equivalent resistance from BOPS of the order of 650-760 mm (taking into account the deviation of the trajectory caused by a close to the critical angle of inclination of the VLD of 83 degrees ) Such resistance of the frontal projection can protect the crews of even the early M1A1HA + and M1A2 from armor-piercing armor-piercing projectiles of the ZBM-44 Lekalo at a distance of at least 1200-1500 m and with safe maneuvering angles of ± 35 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the barrel of the M256 gun, because equivalent resistance is 400 —500 mm side sheets of the tower at an angle of 55 degrees can reach 750-900 mm. A similar picture is observed with respect to the British Challenger 2, which has special armor of the Chobham type with an equivalent resistance of up to 850-900 mm.

As for the even more advanced M1A2 SEP v2 / 3, their “special reservation” packages, in addition to the corundum-ceramic size AD95, have a more resistant 100rd generation UO3 ceramic uranium, which differs by graphite sputtering and a titanium “casing” (instead of aluminum UO100 2nd generation filler). Naturally, the equivalent resistance of the tower of these versions of “Abrams” reached 950–970 mm, which does not allow breaking through even newer domestic BOPS ZBM-60 “Lead-2” from a distance of 1000 m. Therefore, at the present stage of formation, tank troops of the Russian North they need to develop a fundamentally new 125-mm armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells, the physico-mechanical and kinetic parameters of the cores of which would be close to those of the promising BOPS “Vacuum-1”.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The leader of the Redskins 22 January 2020 06: 01 New
    • 30
    • 7
    +23
    Well ... And only yesterday I read about the "piece" of the article ... And Damantsev took and broke off my aspirations ...)
    1. Bar2 22 January 2020 07: 41 New
      • 10
      • 27
      -17
      “depleted uranium” is a journalistic metaphor. There are two isotopes of uranium 235 and 238,
      235 goes to the nuclear power plant in the form of fuel, and 238 is production waste upon receipt of 235, out of 238 they make cores / pins for armor-piercing shells.
      Saying "depleted uranium" when in fact is enriched uranium is illiterate.
      1. Wedmak 22 January 2020 07: 54 New
        • 26
        • 4
        +22
        Why is it illiterate? Pure uranium is not used anywhere, even in nuclear power plants. Uranium is part of the fuel mixed with other elements, usually it is uranium dioxide. Here is the percentage of uranium in it and allows us to talk about enrichment or depletion.
        1. Bar2 22 January 2020 08: 23 New
          • 10
          • 20
          -10
          Quote: Wedmak
          Pure uranium is not used anywhere, even in nuclear power plants

          why didn’t you get in, the conversation is about 238 uranium from which they make pins for shells, where does 235 uranium dioxide come from? Shells are not made of it and pins are not made of 238 dioxide, but they are made of pure 238 uranium with 1% molybdenum, therefore it is not "depleted", but enriched.
          1. Wedmak 22 January 2020 08: 44 New
            • 8
            • 5
            +3
            The 238th is also fuel, so crowbars are made from depleted ones. Enriched goes to processing and fuel.
            1. Bar2 22 January 2020 08: 50 New
              • 5
              • 22
              -17
              Quote: Wedmak
              The 238th is also fuel, so crowbars are made from depleted ones. Enriched goes to processing and fuel.


              no, it’s not going to fuel; you have problems with education.
              1. Wedmak 22 January 2020 08: 52 New
                • 16
                • 3
                +13
                And you have problems with politeness. MOX fuel: uranium-238 + mixture of plutonium radioisotopes.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. Wedmak 22 January 2020 09: 00 New
                    • 16
                    • 2
                    +14
                    We could have guessed if it was so educated that we are talking about fast neutron reactors, where:
                    MOX fuel is used in the new BN-800 fast neutron reactor at Unit 4 of the Beloyarsk NPP (Zarechny, Sverdlovsk Region).
                    What happens in the BN-800 reactor?
                    1. neutron capture by plutonium -> decay and emission of neutrons (as in a conventional reactor instead of uranium-235)
                    2. uranium-238 captures a neutron -> -> -> plutonium-239
                    3. As a result, we get spent nuclear fuel with decay products (plutonium), uranium-238 and ... new plutonium.
                    Next, at the radiochemical plant:
                    4. We clear the spent nuclear fuel in the PUREX process, remove the decay products, and obtain MOX fuel: uranium-238 + a mixture of plutonium radioisotopes. Weapon-grade plutonium can also be used in MOX fuel.
                2. Bar2 22 January 2020 09: 03 New
                  • 5
                  • 20
                  -15
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  And you have problems with politeness. MOX fuel: uranium-238 + mixture of plutonium radioisotopes.


                  you simply persist in ignorance, 238 uranium in MOX fuel, it is not fuel itself, but an element for transmutation, a ballast, from it plutonium is obtained, which is already used as fuel and weapon element.
                  1. Wedmak 22 January 2020 09: 06 New
                    • 18
                    • 5
                    +13
                    You cling to words, accusing a stranger of ignorance and ignorance from scratch. I see no reason to continue the discourse.
                    1. Bar2 22 January 2020 09: 10 New
                      • 12
                      • 27
                      -15
                      Quote: Wedmak
                      You cling to words, accusing a stranger of ignorance and ignorance from scratch. I see no reason to continue the discourse.


                      we are not here for the sake of reverence or courtesy of behavior, when there is no meaning behind the words, “depleted uranium”, “238 fuel” are not just meaningless cliches, but also a harmful definition, leading away the unaware of the true state of affairs, in textbooks on physics, there is no "depleted uranium".
                      1. Passing 22 January 2020 18: 04 New
                        • 5
                        • 4
                        +1
                        Bar2, I’ll support you, fuel is what releases energy, or rather, has a positive cost-allocation balance. Uranium-238 does not possess such quality.
                        For example, gasoline contains tetraethyl lead, the most important component, regulates the chemical combustion process - increases the octane number, is it fuel? Obviously not.
                      2. Oyo Sarkazmi 22 January 2020 20: 39 New
                        • 7
                        • 1
                        +6
                        Quote: Passing by
                        has a positive cost-allocation balance. Uranium-238 does not possess such quality.

                        Superbly possesses. More than a quarter of the atoms of uranium-238, having absorbed the FAST neutron, decays with the release of energy, like uranium-235. But neutrons do not fly out. The reaction is non-chain, therefore, a small (half) power is required on a highly enriched (up to 20%) uranium-235 reactor.
                        Plutonium has a useful property - it shares both fast and slow neutrons. Therefore, they enrich uranium-238. And blankets are metal, not oxide.
                        Depleted uranium is called uranium, in which there is no uranium-235. Hardly ever.
                      3. Passing 22 January 2020 21: 59 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Where exactly in your post reveals a positive balance? Well, energy is released, well, energy is also needed for the formation of an external neutron. Moreover, not all neutrons participate in the reaction.

                        Here's the argument for you - in fast neutron reactors, U238 is in the reproduction zone, and Pu239 or U235 is in the active zone. Those. their essence is that they were able to launch a self-sustaining fast-neutron nuclear reaction for Pu239 or U235, and in addition they received the self-reproduction of Pu239 fuel from non-U238 fuel. Those. the fuel is still the same Pu239 or U235. Yes, in the reaction of U238, energy is generated in Pu239, so what, there is no balance. Breeder reactors are proof of this.
                      4. Oyo Sarkazmi 22 January 2020 23: 56 New
                        • 4
                        • 1
                        +3
                        Quote: Passing by
                        Yes, the reaction U238 in Pu239 produces energy

                        This reaction comes with the absorption of energy.
                        The induced decay of uranium-238 produces more energy than the decay of uranium-235. A little more, but more.
                        When a slow neutron is captured, uranium-238 turns into plutonium (through a chain of beta decays).
                        When a fast neutron is captured, uranium-238 can turn into plutonium. And it can fall into lead, cesium, strontium, barium. About a quarter of the time. Just like uranium-235.
                        Plutonium enhances efficiency from fast neutrons to 100% of the power of the primary reactor - it also gives fast neutrons when decaying, cutting uranium-238.
                        Uranium-238 can be replaced with thorium. In nature, it is 4 times more than uranium. The energy efficiency of thorium is about the same. But thorium produces gamma-radioactive fragments with a long half-life.
                        And the last one. Uranium-238 + plutonium-239 is not in the active zone, but around it, like a casing of a conventional reactor. In the form of metal ingots is a blanket.
                  2. krot 22 January 2020 22: 24 New
                    • 6
                    • 0
                    +6
                    you just persist in ignorance, 238 uranium in MOX fuel, it is not fuel itself, but an element for transmutation, a ballast

                    And you persist in your tediousness. In jet engines, oxygen is also not a fuel but an oxidizing agent, and yet everything that is poured into tanks is called fuel .. Therefore, any uranium, even if it is used for your mutations, is still involved in the process and is fuel! I didn’t dive so deeply into nuclear physics .. Apparently it’s only there that you cook that you have forgotten how to communicate.
                    And by the way, ballast is written with two A, letters!
                  3. opus 23 January 2020 14: 10 New
                    • 6
                    • 2
                    +4
                    Quote: Passing by
                    fuel is what releases energy, or rather, has a positive cost-allocation balance. Uranium-238 does not possess such quality.

                    Fuel - a liquid, solid or gaseous substance, which has the property of releasing energy that can be directed to specific purposes.
                    Quote: Passing by
                    For example, in gasoline

                    Is gasoline fuel?
                    yes
                    B is a combustible mixture of light hydrocarbons
                    Quote: Passing by
                    tetraethyl lead

                    it's antiknock additive to motor fuel increasing its octane number.
                    Gasoline with a higher octane rating can withstand a higher compression ratio in the engine cylinders without premature self-ignition (knocking in the engine, “knock”) and therefore it can be used in engines with a higher specific power and efficiency
                    More power, more efficiency is an increase.
                    Quote: Passing by
                    positive cost-allocation balance

                    +
                    Pb (CH3CH2) 4 + O2 = exodermal reaction, as I understand it?
                    Gasoline- fuel, TPP-additive to the fuel and its there is less than 0,1%

                    1.U238 in "nuclear fuel" under 80% (+/-), this is definitely "not an additive"
                    2.U238

                    Spurious capture of instantaneous (ν -1) neutrons by atomic nuclei of core materials in various nuclear reactions leads to the formation of radioactive elements, during the natural decay of which energy is released Wn = 6 MeV in each capture.

                    Yes, it's not as much as the U235. (below) .. However

                    Upon fission of the nucleus of the U235 atom by thermal neutrons with an energy of 0,02–0,05 eV, atomic fragment nuclei with a total kinetic energy are formed E k = 166,2 MeV, instantaneous fission neutrons in an amount equal to ν = 2,424 on average, with an average kinetic energy E n = 4,8 MeV and concomitant fission reactions of “instantaneous” γ-quanta with a conditional delay boundary of 10–3 s and average total energy E γ 1 = 8 MeV
                    + "fragments" E β ->7 MeV and γ-quanta with energy E γ 2 =7,2 MeV
                    + neutrino with energy E γ = 9,6 MeV.
                    etc. Wn = 201,7 MeV.

                    This kinetic energy of particles transferred to atoms and molecules of structural elements of the active zone of a nuclear reactor in the process of their deceleration, deceleration and capture, is converted into thermal energy and leads to heating of the active zone.

                    Th according to your waiting logic: U238- fuel
                    Moreover, it "produces" even better fuel plutonium
                  4. Passing 23 January 2020 20: 56 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Quote: opus
                    Pb (CH3CH2) 4 + O2 = exodermal reaction, as I understand it?

                    Yes, the balance is positive. But, if we take TPP as fuel, then spitting in a tank with gasoline can be called fuel, because spitting contains organic compounds that burn out with the release of heat. This is pure sophistry.
                    IMHO, for the discussion to make sense, it is necessary to come to a consensus that there is fuel.
                    I can’t give a definition of fuel, it does not work out briefly and comprehensively, here are the theses:
                    1) Kerosene + oxidizing agent - fuel, separately kerosene (+ implied atm. Oxygen) - fuel, separately oxidizing agent is not fuel, because it does not release energy without a reducing agent.
                    2) If there is a mixture of a substance that releases energy and is neutral, for example, gasoline and water, then the mixture is fuel, gas outside the mixture is fuel, because it can work without filler, and water outside the mixture is not fuel.
                    3) Substances that have a positive balance of energy expended / received, added to the fuel not for energy generation, and emitting an insignificant share in the total energy generated, this is not fuel.
                    TPP, oil for lubricating cylinders is an example.
                    4) Substances that produce energy, but do not have a positive balance of energy expended / received, are also not fuel, they are energy storage devices.
                    Lead sulfate in batteries is an example.
                    Artificial isotopes, in the context of the decay reaction (decay, not fission!), Are also not fuel, because the energy costs of their creation exceed the exhaust. Natural isotopes, in the context of the decay reaction, could have been fuel, if not for the economic loss-making of their application.

                    I am waiting for reasoned objections.
                  5. opus 23 January 2020 23: 56 New
                    • 6
                    • 3
                    +3
                    Quote: Passing by
                    When and spitting in a tank with gasoline ... pure sophistry.

                    ?
                    "Spit"...
                    Something, Little Johnny, you tell me all of God’s science to crossed out by censorship you know ..

                    1. This is not provided by the manufacturer.
                    2. Over time, Pb (CH3CH2) 4 "self-oxidizes" and after a year, the octane losses are already substantial. Less power, power is directly proportional to energy.
                    and Pb (CH3CH2) 4 + O2 = was reduced, nevertheless, to the fact that it is not a "ballast", not an "inhibitor" and not a "catalyst".
                    3. Mercaptans (thiols) do not bother you (in gasoline, kerosene)? Will you not do demercaptans?
                    4. sophistry something to do with it?
                    Quote: Passing by
                    I can’t give fuel definitions,

                    I gave (above)
                    Quote: Passing by
                    Separate kerosene (+ implied atm. oxygen) - fuel, separately an oxidizing agent is not fuel, because it does not release energy without a reducing agent.

                    it is a fuel component in power plants using oxidative processes.
                    simpler: K is burningwhat, in this case.
                    Quote: Passing by
                    2) If, there is a mixture of emitting

                    1. Everything is "good", only
                    Quote: opus
                    U238 in "nuclear fuel" at 80% (+/-

                    2. U238
                    Quote: opus
                    during the natural radioactive decay of which the energy Wn = 6 MeV is released in each capture.

                    and it’s not sour enough
                    Because almost equivalent to part of the effect of U235
                    Quote: opus
                    instantaneous fission neutrons in an amount equal to ν = 2,424 on average, with an average kinetic energy E n = 4,8 MeV and the accompanying fission reactions “instantaneous” γ-quanta with a conditional delay boundary of 10 - 3 s and average total energy E γ 1 = 8 MeV

                    Quote: Passing by
                    3) Substances having a positive balance of spent / received

                    This is generally nonsense
                    1. The electrolysis of 1m H2 ^ 3 requires 4,3-4,6 kWh electricity + TPP efficiency 40% + transformer efficiency 90% + losses in the lines of (overhead) power lines about 60% + "efficiency" of coal / oil production / something else (? xz how much, put 50%).
                    Total for 1m H2 ^ 3 = roughly 43 kWh
                    Mass of 1 cubic meter (1 m3, cube, cubic meter) of gaseous hydrogen at a barometric pressure of 760 mm Hg and a temperature of 0 ° C is equal to 0,08988 kg or 89,88 grams.
                    Н2 + О2-> Н2О +143,06 MJ / kg (12,87 MJ / 90gram)
                    12,87 MJ / 90 grams (1 m ^ 3) give diarrhea 3,575 kWh
                    Give 3,575 kWh, spent 43 kWh
                    However? (Threat. We look only at RS-25, we are not interested in boosters in this case)

                    Threat. Your "definitive" fuel
                    Quote: Passing by
                    fuel is what releases energy, or rather, has a positive cost-allocation balance

                    does not channel
                    Quote: Passing by
                    Lead sulfate in batteries is an example.

                    stupid example
                    Quote: Passing by
                    it is also not fuel, because the energy costs of their creation exceed the exhaust.

                    I think if you calculate ALL the costs of obtaining kerosene (O2, then we have a freebie), there will be a very negative balance.
                    Do I need to continue to chew "why"?
                    or so you will understand about the compactness of the source of energy at the right time, in the right place + ease of storage / use?
                    The catalytic decomposition of hydrogen peroxide can look very impressive. Pour 300-10 ml liquid detergent for dishes "Gala" (or any similar detergent) into a 20 ml conical flask. In another flask, dissolve 3-5 g of copper sulfate in excess of strong ammonia solution (add ammonia until copper sulfate is completely dissolved). Blue copper (II) ammonia is formed:
                    CuSO4 + 6NH3 + 2H2O = [Cu (NH3) 4] (OH) 2 + (NH4) 2SO4
                    Pour the copper ammonia solution into the flask with detergent and mix well. Place the flask on the table and quickly add 50-100 ml of a 30-50% hydrogen peroxide solution to it. Strong gas evolution will occur. A foam fountain will strike from the flask. All the space around the flask in a few seconds will be filled with a large lump of foam. Steam will rise from the foam - the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide proceeds with the release of heat. In our experiments, the height and width of the resulting foam was about 60 cm.

                    Now we will calculate how much energy we will spend on getting all the tripe and look here:
                    Quote: Passing by
                    I am waiting for reasoned objections.

                    Come on?
                    From you, then what is the thread of "reasoned", acre spitting in the gas tank hear / see?
                  6. Passing 24 January 2020 13: 45 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: opus
                    sophistry something to do with?

                    You are constantly doing it, through the paragraph. Sophistry is a substitution of concepts.
                    Quote: opus
                    Over time, Pb (CH3CH2) 4 “self-oxidizes” and after a year, the octane losses are already substantial. Less power, power is directly proportional to energy.

                    They even could not resist here. The power of the ENGINE (and not the fuel) from the TPP increases through the efficiency of the cycle, and not from the increase in heat generation of the fuel.wink
                    Quote: opus
                    mercaptans (thiols) do not bother you (in gasoline, kerosene)? Do not you do demercaptans?

                    Then take the conversation aside. What did you want to refute, prove with this thesis? According to my thesis, gasoline contaminated with mercaptans is fuel, as well as uncontaminated. Mercaptans alone are not fuel. Any objections?
                    Quote: opus
                    it is a fuel component in power plants using oxidative processes.
                    simpler: K is fuel, in this case.

                    Again, engage in manipulations, blabber, take to the side.
                    Why are you telling me that K-fuel? Why do you focus on the essentials that are unimportant for the issue under discussion?
                    The argument was that fuel + oxidizer = fuel. An oxidizing agent without fuel is not fuel. Any objections?
                    Quote: opus
                    . The electrolysis of 1m H2 ^ 3 requires 4,3-4,6 kWh of electricity ...

                    Well, sane argumentation started from this place. You convinced me that fuel does not have to be in a positive balance. Those. the positive balance argument is being removed from the agenda. And you can even take your definition of fuel.
                    Quote: opus
                    From you, then what is the thread of "reasoned", acre spitting in the gas tank hear / see?

                    Manipulate again. I clearly indicated that there was first a consensus on the definition of fuel, then a substantive conversation. We will consider the consensus to be reached, and a little later I will break your position completely to the ground with concrete arguments. wink
                  7. Passing 24 January 2020 21: 04 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    First, let us outline the subject of discussion.
                    I supported the thesis that the U238 is not fuel. Judging by the distribution of pluses in the branch, most adhere to the opposite opinion. Including you:
                    Quote: opus
                    1.U238 in "nuclear fuel" under 80% (+/-), this is definitely "not an additive"

                    .....
                    Quote: opus
                    during the natural radioactive decay of which the energy Wn = 6 MeV is released in each capture.
                    and it’s not sour enough
                    Because almost equivalent to part of the effect of U235

                    Those. You claim that U238 is fuel because it is in nuclear fuel, there are many mixtures of U238 and U235, and it emits a significant amount of energy.
                    Here are my new arguments, in bulk, without reference to a specific post or to you personally, that the U238 is not fuel.
                    1) The "Nuclear Battery" on the U238 cannot be created. For in the natural decay U238 does not emit a practically significant amount of energy. U238 is cold, for even the extremely radioactive Plutonium239 is just a little warm to the touch. (http://himiya.gosstandart.info/himicheskie-elementy/aktinoidy/plutoniy/)
                    Those. use this energy is almost impossible.
                    2) A reactor on pure U238 cannot be created. For even for the case of fast neutrons, the average number of secondary neutrons per captured is 0,25 and this is less than 1. (http://nuclphys.sinp.msu.ru/sem2/sem12.html)
                    We can’t extract energy, so it’s not fuel.
                    3) In a slow neutron reactor, U238 emits scanty energy, because there is almost no nuclear fission of U238.
                    Your argument
                    Quote: opus
                    Spurious capture of instantaneous (ν -1) neutrons by atomic nuclei of core materials in various nuclear reactions leads to the formation of radioactive elements, during the natural radioactive decay of which the energy Wn = 6 MeV is released in each capture.

                    doesn’t stand up to criticism, where exactly it is indicated that spurious capture is carried out precisely by the U238 nuclei, and accordingly Wn = 6 MeV is separated from U238? Nothing that in the active zone at this time several dozen radioactive nuclides?
                    Actually, it’s directly said so that “core materials,” materials, not material in the singular.
                    Your argument
                    Quote: opus
                    U238 in "nuclear fuel" at 80% (+/-
                    absolutely nothing changes. It’s just a hard-to-remove admixture that adds little to the energy sector, what difference does it make?
                    4) In a fast neutron reactor, U238 releases noticeable energy from nuclear fission.
                    According to the data from http://nuclphys.sinp.msu.ru/sem2/sem12.html
                    It is necessary to take into account that fast neutrons with energies above 1.4 MeV can also divide nuclei of the 238U isotope with a noticeable relative intensity, which is much larger in the natural mixture. For 238U fission, the coefficient ν ≈ 2.5. In the fission spectrum, 60% of neutrons have energies above the effective threshold of 1.4 MeV fission of 238U. Of these 60% of neutrons, only one out of five neutrons manages to cause 238U fission

                    Those. 12% of neutrons cause the fission reaction U238 for a natural mixture. Those. it can be roughly assumed that in fast neutron reactors, 100% of the energy released by U235 accounts for 12% of the energy released by U238. Pretty significant.
                    Is it fuel for a fast neutron reactor? No. U238 is a fuel component. For it is not capable of isolating a significant amount on its own, only through external irradiation with fast neutrons from the fission reaction U235 or Pu239. Those. we have a peculiar variation of a two-component fuel consisting of U235 and U238 / Pu239.
                    By the way, this same consideration can be used in paragraph 3 as a counterargument if you suddenly want to challenge the meager fraction of the energy released by U238 in a slow neutron reactor.
                    Conclusion: pure U238 is not fuel in principle. In enriched uranium fuel, or MOX fuel, U238 is a component of fuel for fast neutron reactors.

                    PS: I will win back the consensus. Your definition of fuel, IMHO, is not complete, it does not at all reflect the multicomponent nature of the fuel and, as a consequence, the contribution of the fuel components to the energy sector is significant / insignificant.
          2. krot 23 January 2020 14: 49 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Passing by
            For example, gasoline contains tetraethyl lead, the most important component, regulates the chemical combustion process - increases the octane number, is it fuel? Obviously not.

            Nonsense. But is oxygen fuel? Not your way. But without it, no oxidation processes will occur, and the "fuel" will be useless. One without the other makes no sense as fuel. Rockets are fueled into space: oxygen or hydrogen and other components.
          3. opus 24 January 2020 00: 08 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            Quote: krot
            But without it, no oxidation processes will occur, and the "fuel" will be useless

            this is not true...
            1. Take fluoride as an oxidizing agent.
            EVEN oxygen is burning in it (oxygen monofluoride (dioxidifluoride))
            F2 + O2-> F2O2 + Q
            Quote: krot
            Nonsense. Is oxygen the fuel? However, without it, there will be no oxidation process,

            - not true
            or
            Platinum (V) Fluoride - an inorganic compound, a salt of platinum metal and hydrofluoric acid with the formula PtF5
            PtF5 + O2-> O2PtF6
            oxygen has a formal oxidation state of + ½.
            it turns on = output Flammable.

            2. liquid rocket engines developed by Laros will use hydrogen peroxide (about 90%) and aviation kerosene as fuel components ....

            3.Walter HWK 502 (RI-210b) thrust 1500 kgf or torpedo 53-57
            Concentrated to about 80-85% hydrogen peroxide in various German documents was called "oxylin", "fuel T" (T-stoff), "aurole", "perhydrol". The catalyst solution was called Z-stoff.

            Quote: krot
            Rockets are fueled into space: oxygen or hydrogen and other components.
        2. krot 23 January 2020 14: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Passing by
          Bar2, I’ll support you, fuel is what releases energy, or rather, has a positive cost-allocation balance

          Nonsense. Is oxygen the fuel? However, without it there will be no oxidation process, and any fuel will not be able to emit any energy. They are charged with space with oxygen or hydrogen in exactly the same way as with other components, and all this in aggregate is fuel!
        3. Firelake 25 January 2020 20: 03 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          No. Oxygen is an oxidizing agent.
          If you burn oxygen and it releases energy it will be fuel. The environment in which it will burn will be an oxidizing agent ..
  • opus 22 January 2020 11: 52 New
    • 6
    • 5
    +1
    Quote: Bar2
    no, it’s not going to fuel

    belay
    In uranium tablets that are placed in fuel assemblies, there is uranium235 with a concentration
    uranium-235 equal to 5%.
    the rest is 238U dioxide + the remnants of what was obtained from natural enriched (for leaching, for example) + protective coatings of a tablet (well, like novya: a three-layer coating - TRISO)
    WITHOUT 238 TVEL / NPP will not “work”
    enrich uranium like this:
    the first centrifuge of the cascade receives 99.3% of uranium-238 and 0,7% of the uranium-235 we need.
    Часть uranium-238 remained "in place", and the second centrifuge comes already - roughly - 99,2% of uranium-238 and 0,8% of uranium-235 - and so on


    Quote: Wedmak
    MOX fuel: uranium-238 + mixture of plutonium radioisotopes.

    not true
    this is for MOX, MOX is a “new” promising fuel
    MOX fuel: mixture of uranium and plutonium
    in order to use MOX in nuclear power plants, you need to obtain a separate IAEA license.
    Then you can put half of the conventional rods, and half with MOX fuel.
    In Europe, 40 reactors have already received such licenses
    in the USA - in my opinion, the Ministry of Energy has not yet been issued to anyone (the Americans crap one's pants, and the French screwed up)
    if you are talking about the HEU-KNOW contract, there is something else:
    1. take tails - depleted uranium, which contains only 0,2-0,3% of uranium-235. the rest is uranium-238 + slightly impurities.
    tails on the planet sea:
    France - 190 thousand tons, Russia - 500 thousand tons. USA - 740 thousand tons
    2. “tail” enrich up to 1,5% U-235 (we are in centrifuges)
    3. "body tails" with weapons U-235 up to ASTM C996-96 standard
    / patent RU 2479489 /
    1. Bar2 22 January 2020 13: 20 New
      • 3
      • 15
      -12
      Quote: opus
      WITHOUT 238 TVEL / NPP will not “work”


      So, another one who knows, 238 uranium is not radioactive, does not divide, and therefore IS NOT FUEL.
      Instead of 238 uranium, another passive element or substance can be put in a tablet and this WILL emit heat, which means it will work.
      1. opus 22 January 2020 13: 55 New
        • 13
        • 5
        +8
        Quote: Bar2
        So, another one who knows, 238 uranium is not radioactive, does not divide, and therefore IS NOT FUEL.

        1. A lot of empty aplomb (many words, few facts)

        Quote: Bar2
        another passive element or substance can be put in a tablet

        2. Please at least some fakik in the studio? AND?
        about the "other" passive substance "Everything is possible, you can break with a fool and 21 fingers.
        I don’t understand the current having a uranium cake, where U235 + U238, which sheep will be purposefully extracted from it U238 (and this is expensive, VERY expensive and dangerous), which would load there
        Quote: Bar2
        can put another passive element

        fool
        Show me (on the facts) please such a cloven-hoofed animal?
        Of the fissile materials, the most important is the 235U isotope, whose share in natural uranium is only 0,714%. Although 238U and is shared by neutrons whose energy exceeds 1,2 MeV, but a self-sustaining chain reaction on fast neutrons in natural uranium is not possible due to the high probability of inelastic 238U core interactions with fast neutrons. In this case, the neutron energy becomes lower than the threshold nuclear fission energy 238U. The use of a moderator leads to a decrease in resonance absorption at 238U


        In the case of uranium-238, two short-lived elements are formed sequentially in radiation neutron capture reactions - uranium-239 (half-life T 1/2 = 23,470 min) and neptunium-239 (half-life T 1/2 = 2,355 days), with natural radioactive decay which, with the emission of β particles (electrons), a remarkable long-lived element of plutonium-239 is formed (T 1/2 = 2,41 · 10 4 years):
        1. Bar2 22 January 2020 14: 42 New
          • 3
          • 14
          -11
          Quote: opus
          Please at least some fakik in the studio? AND?

          fact, so fact here you are
          Nuclear fuel is used in nuclear reactors, where it is normally sealed.
          closed fuel elements (fuel elements) in the form of tablets a few centimeters in size.
          High thermal conductivity and mechanical properties have dispersion fuels, in which
          fine particles of UO2, UC, PuO2 and other compounds of uranium and plutonium are distributed heterogeneously in
          a metal matrix of aluminum, molybdenum, stainless steel, etc. The material of the matrix determines
          radiation resistance and thermal conductivity of dispersion fuel. For example, fuel oil
          the first nuclear power plant consisted of particles of an alloy of uranium with 9% molybdenum filled with magnesium

          http://profbeckman.narod.ru/RH0.files/22_5.pdf
          1. opus 22 January 2020 14: 52 New
            • 6
            • 3
            +3
            Quote: Bar2
            For example, fuel oil
            the first nuclear power plant consisted of particles of an alloy of uranium with 9% molybdenum filled with magnesium

            5-6% U235
            9% Mo
            1-4% Mgn
            100% -5% -9% -2% = 80-84% residue U238 (dioxide)
            Do you have any questions?
            conviction
            Quote: Bar2
            , and 238 is production waste upon receipt of 235, and from 238 they make cores / pins for armor-piercing shells.

            complete stupidity.
            The insinuations "whether he is fuel or not" for the poor, he is in fuel.

            Quote: Bar2
            http://profbeckman.n

            here carefully and read


            And what about
            Quote: Bar2
            another passive element or substance can be put into the tablet and this WILL emit heat, which means it will work

            ? where are the "fillers" ballast at 70% at least "other"?
            zoom. I give a hint
          2. Bar2 22 January 2020 15: 03 New
            • 4
            • 17
            -13
            Quote: opus
            complete stupidity.
            The insinuations "whether he is fuel or not" for the poor, he is in fuel.


            a flux from metallurgy is also present, but not one fool will not say that it is fuel.
            It's disgusting to talk to you.
          3. opus 22 January 2020 19: 35 New
            • 12
            • 5
            +7
            Quote: Bar2
            flux from metallurgy t

            Does metallurgy participate in the fuel cycle?
            / some kind of example with a slight touch of moronity, no?
            Quote: Bar2
            It's disgusting to talk to you.

            likewise
  • fyvaprold 22 January 2020 16: 00 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    Quote: Bar2
    another knowledgeable, 238 uranium is not radioactive

    Oh oh Uranium is weakly radioactive, but still radioactive. Have you acquired your “knowledge” in two-week courses of academicians, for 500 rubles a day?
  • Maki Avellevich 25 January 2020 09: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Bar2
    So, another one who knows, 238 uranium is not radioactive, does not divide, and therefore IS NOT FUEL.

    I ask you, stop writing game.
    Does Thorium 234 say anything to you in connection with uranium 238?
  • asv363 23 January 2020 19: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: opus
    To use MOX in nuclear power plants, you need to obtain a separate IAEA license

    This is an erroneous statement. It is enough that the national regulator gives its consent by examining the rationale for NRS and inspecting the power unit.
  • Glucky73 23 January 2020 13: 38 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Uranium-238 is used as fuel for breeder reactors, for example, in the BN-600 fast neutron reactor. Also used in nuclear weapons. Due to its high density and low decay activity, high hardness of uranium-238 is used to protect against hard gamma radiation, as well as from high-energy neutrons, and can be used in armoring tanks, bulletproof vests, as well as in ammunition for small arms and artillery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD-238
  • greshnik80 22 January 2020 20: 05 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Uranium enrichment is determined by the uranium-235 isotope. Therefore, shells are made from depleted "(235 isotope) uranium.
  • Aibolit 22 January 2020 10: 21 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    Magazines all True Gutara.
    - there was natural uranium (238,235,234)
    - in the factory almost all 235,234 were extracted from it
    - left lean with a reduced content of 235,234
    ----
    Journalists do not say the depleted isotope of uranium 238 (235,234)?
  • fyvaprold 22 January 2020 12: 49 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    Quote: Bar2
    “depleted uranium” is a journalistic metaphor. There are two isotopes of uranium 235 and 238,
    235 goes to the nuclear power plant in the form of fuel, and 238 is production waste upon receipt of 235, out of 238 they make cores / pins for armor-piercing shells.
    Saying "depleted uranium" when in fact is enriched uranium is illiterate.

    “Depleted uranium” is not a metaphor, but natural uranium depleted in the isotope 235. Enrichment of uranium in the isotope 238 does not exist in nature. Something like this.
    1. opus 22 January 2020 14: 55 New
      • 12
      • 3
      +9
      Quote: fyvaprold
      Depleted Uranium is not a metaphor, but natural uranium depleted in the 235 isotope.

      he can’t hammer it
      Quote: fyvaprold
      Isotope 238 enrichment of uranium does not exist in nature. Something like this.

      Yes, this can’t be done on centrifuges (what difference does it have, a gradient in the mass can be divided)
      ONLY WHY?
      Is it necessary (at the moment)?
      1. fyvaprold 22 January 2020 15: 54 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: opus
        ONLY WHY?

        This is what I meant, saying that the enrichment of the 238th is not in nature. No one is intentionally doing this and will not do it. hi
        1. Andrew_A 22 January 2020 20: 32 New
          • 13
          • 0
          +13
          Is this article exactly about tank ammunition?
  • ser56 23 January 2020 11: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Bar2
    There are two isotopes of uranium 235 and 238,

    in natural uranium there is still an isotope 233 bully
    Quote: Bar2
    235 goes to nuclear power plants in the form of fuel

    lies - 235 uranium enriched in the isotope goes to fuel ... hi
    Quote: Bar2
    and 238 is production waste

    it is an isotope of uranium. which is used in fast neutron reactors to produce plutonium ... wink
    Quote: Bar2
    Saying "depleted uranium" when in fact is enriched uranium is illiterate.

    your phrases are illiterate, depleted / enriched uranium is always on a specific isotope bully
  • Chaldon48 23 January 2020 13: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Dinner isotope 235, which reduces the radioactivity of the remaining uranium 238.
  • asv363 23 January 2020 18: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Bar2
    “depleted uranium” is a journalistic metaphor.

    Dear Pavel! This term is often used by nuclear physicists. The fact is that the content of uranium-235 in natural uranium is 0,72%. In the process of improving enrichment technologies, the amount of uranium-235 in the tailings began to fall to 0,1-0,2%. Therefore, this uranium is called depleted (uranium-235 plays the main role in AE and in the simplest nuclear weapons).
  • Aibolit 22 January 2020 10: 16 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Do not read Damanians in the morning!
    But there are no others, Filip Filipych!
    But you don’t read anything in the morning.
    wassat
    -----
    There is a proMblem, but there is no way out
    What do you do?
    1. Oyo Sarkazmi 22 January 2020 20: 47 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: Aibolit
      What do you do?

      Shoot under the tower, what to do. Or the first is a high-explosive one, which removes everything hinged from the tower - antennas, optics, active protection, armor plates. And the second is to make holes.
      Although after the first Abrams turns into a Tiger of the 1943 model, in terms of functionality.
      1. Pavel Yashkov 22 January 2020 22: 19 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        I read somewhere that the Iraqis in the first war from an ambush on T72 hit an abram with a land mine. Did not help. In the end, he burned them. Really no, I don’t know
        1. dvina71 22 January 2020 22: 58 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          Quote: Pavel Yashkov
          Really no, I don’t know

          It’s not true .. the landmines will at least disable all the external elements of the tank .. including surveillance devices .. A real case is described when the BMP-2 flew out onto the road behind Abrams ... and, with fright, they put a line from the 30mm gun into the rear of the tower .. BC made a boom .. BMP flew on ...
        2. Maki Avellevich 25 January 2020 09: 50 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Pavel Yashkov
          I read somewhere that the Iraqis in the first war from an ambush on T72 hit an abram with a land mine. Did not help. In the end, he burned them. Really no, I don’t know

          if the Iraqis were not in a hurry to lose their sandals in that war and used the thing called "command and control", then the Americans wouldn’t be able to ride so easily to Baghdad.
    2. Falcon5555 23 January 2020 19: 31 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Aibolit (Ivan Arnoldovich Bormental)
      There is a proMblem, but there is no way out
      What do you do?

      Well, something to read Bormental?
  • DMB_95 22 January 2020 14: 41 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    It seems that to combat heavily armored targets there are still missiles that go through the gun’s barrel.
    1. Arthur 85 22 January 2020 17: 03 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      So, they are cumulative, and BOPS has certain advantages.
    2. V.I.P. 22 January 2020 17: 58 New
      • 5
      • 7
      -2
      So it seems like only 20 shots from an armored cannon of the UR and a barrel for replacement. In addition, trophy is being installed on KAZ abrams as a modernization and a new leopard. Challenger with a trophy test. So that they will soon bring down such missiles.
      1. 2Albert 22 January 2020 20: 28 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        The angles and speed at which KAZ Trophy can hit ur are limited.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Maki Avellevich 25 January 2020 09: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: DMB_95
      It seems that to combat heavily armored targets there are still missiles that go through the gun’s barrel.

      there is, but somehow tactics or practice have not yet taken root.
      rockets to beat is more suitable from light specialized carts.
      like this
  • Shelest2000 22 January 2020 18: 57 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    The effect of these uranium cores on the crew is interesting. Or are they all given lead pants?
    1. DMB_95 22 January 2020 19: 19 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Shelest2000
      The effect of these uranium cores on the crew is interesting. Or are they all given lead pants?

      In the States, there was a scandal when they proved and told about a large number of cancer diseases (cancer) among the "demobilization", which during the service often dealt with "uranium" ammunition.
      1. Maki Avellevich 25 January 2020 09: 56 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: DMB_95
        In the States, there was a scandal when they proved and told about a large number of cancer diseases (cancer) among the "demobilization", which during the service often dealt with "uranium" ammunition.

        say that ammunition customers are also not thrilled.
        the rods then wallow anywhere, sometimes near villages (Iraq), etc.
    2. Zabvo 22 January 2020 21: 20 New
      • 2
      • 5
      -3
      I think the crew of the T-72 after the pants will not be needed.
    3. Den717 23 January 2020 19: 06 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Shelest2000
      Or are they all given lead pants?

      It's not about cowards. When a uranium core enters a solid object, it heats up and collapses to form uranium dust. Getting through the respiratory system into the human body, this dust triggers the development of malignant neoplasms (tumors). The development of a tumor is a rather complex and lengthy process. Between the effects of the damaging factor and the clinical manifestations of the tumor, years can pass.
  • Prisoner 22 January 2020 19: 29 New
    • 7
    • 8
    -1
    Damantseva can be used instead of sourdough. Turns any substance into yogurt. “Abram” is a victim in any situation. Damantsev or the Cossack mishandled, or chases the "partners." laughing
  • carstorm 11 22 January 2020 06: 04 New
    • 11
    • 13
    -2
    who would explain why to compare the combat capabilities of vehicles the probability of meeting which is minimal and the number on this mainland is negligible ... we are waiting for the invasion of armored armada from across the ocean?)
    1. ssergey1978 22 January 2020 06: 10 New
      • 18
      • 4
      +14
      Didn’t they meet in Iraq in 1991?
      1. carstorm 11 22 January 2020 06: 21 New
        • 9
        • 10
        -1
        old 72 m of course met) if in the war between Iraq and Iran they were super then 10 years out of date. only you inattentively read the text. there we are talking about our army and I ask the question in which place it can intersect with the one which has abrams in sane quantities in service.
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Cruorvult 22 January 2020 06: 56 New
        • 8
        • 1
        +7
        Campaign is not very. Half a year ago, leafing through a book on this topic, and the Americans do not hide that most of the tanks were destroyed by TOW.

        http://militera.lib.ru/science/0/pdf/valetsky_ov07.pdf

        The exact losses among both sides of the conflict are still a matter of debate. According to various estimates, Iraqi
        the armed forces lost up to 60 thousand people (including those killed, wounded and captured), most of the armored vehicles (up to
        3800 tanks), about 2900 guns and mortars, up to 360 combat
        planes, all ships. Multinational forces lost about
        300 people were killed, 600 were wounded, about 50 were missing, 69 combat aircraft were disabled or destroyed
        and 28 helicopters for various purposes6
        .
        Thus, the multinational force led by the United States managed to achieve an unconditional victory over Iraq by defeating its army, using mainly aircraft.
        Land operation took about 10% of the total duration
        hostilities7 and did not end with the capture of Baghdad, however this
        was due to political reasons.
        1. bessmertniy 22 January 2020 07: 04 New
          • 5
          • 3
          +2
          This is the main sadness - that the armored vehicles of Iraq did not even have time to fight, as it was destroyed. One can recall the Sino-Vietnamese short war, when the PRC tried to teach a lesson to its southern neighbor. Then, after all, the Vietnamese also burned the Chinese armored vehicles well. repeat
      3. Sergey10789 22 January 2020 13: 41 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        No. No. And again no. Have not met! There they met a utilitarian export trash, namely the T-72M, which is from 1979, with shells of the late 60s, and, it seems, but it’s not accurate, with monolithic armor!)
      4. DRM
        DRM 22 January 2020 23: 23 New
        • 1
        • 6
        -5
        Quote: ssergey1978
        Didn’t they meet in Iraq in 1991?

        In Iraq, many T-72s were damaged / destroyed by ATGMs.
    2. Alekseev 22 January 2020 06: 59 New
      • 13
      • 7
      +6
      Who would have danced. Where did the firewood come from? T. Ye. The truth of the data, these are things, in general, soa. Secret The Americans learned the true armor resistance of the T-72 only by conducting a control bombardment of the vehicles that they got during the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. And they were unhappily surprised. And who fired at us and what? No data. Yes, and they should not be today, that’s 10 years, maybe we will find out the true truth
      1. dvina71 22 January 2020 07: 20 New
        • 18
        • 5
        +13
        Quote: Alekseev
        Where is the droushka?

        Here it is .. The author even smoked and let's pour out ..
        True, I forgot to write in the article the main thing - depleted uranium is essentially production waste .. and of course it is cheaper than tungsten complex in production ..
        He should also clarify what pyroforming is ... I'm not saying that this is some kind of peculiarity not only of uranium ... but the temperature of uranium oxidation in pyroforming to 120 s .. how this can increase penetration .. for me it’s a mystery.
        And another question to Damantsev .. if uranium is such a penetrative metal .. why is a tungsten alloy element in cutting steels?
        1. Bobrick 22 January 2020 10: 52 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Tungsten withstands high temperatures (and steel with its content, too), and in case of overheating, after cooling in air, the tool will restore its cutting properties (it is self-hardenable). And the textbooks give out some lousy properties of uranium carbides (they dissolve in water, have less hardness, are pyrophoric, and also radioactive, especially when dust gets inside).
          But that’s why uranium shells penetrate more than 10-15% even with the worst mechanical properties - a mystery. After all, you can put on lead or tin caps to reduce the friction of the projectile during penetration, rather than warming the material being pierced, and the armor usually comes in ceramic part, and with ceramic such reactions are unlikely to occur.
          1. Bratkov Oleg 22 January 2020 18: 42 New
            • 3
            • 7
            -4
            Quote: Bobrick
            .
            But that’s why uranium shells penetrate more than 10-15% even with the worst mechanical properties - a mystery. ...

            And it can be simple propaganda. And the USA was on the moon, and the F-35 was invisible, and their shells were the most pierced, if only the buyers continued to buy them, the main thing was the sale of weapons, and not its use. "Patriots" out, crap one’s pants two times in a row, but very expensive, and not everyone is allowed to buy them.
          2. telobezumnoe 24 January 2020 01: 02 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            it's simple, specific impulse .. this is speed by weight. uranium is heavier than tungsten; accordingly, it will have a large momentum at the same volume and speed, of course you can increase the caliber, speed, but others will have problems, so that uranium’s efficiency is higher, it can absorb more kinetic energy.
            1. Bobrick 27 January 2020 14: 55 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Google reveals that the density of forged uranium is less than that of technical tungsten by 270kg / m ^ 3. With cast uranium, it is still worse (the density of such is lower by another 300 kg / m ^ 3).
              But even so, the difference in density is not more than 1,5%. This can not give a difference in interest of 10% under the same conditions of the experiment, and even in favor of uranium.
        2. Ka-52 23 January 2020 07: 35 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          depleted uranium is essentially waste

          this is precisely the second reason for the extreme interest of the United States in the use of depleted uranium in BP. Reserves of these "wastes" in the United States alone are tens of thousands of tons. Why dispose of it, spending budgetary funds, when you can send it as a dove of democracy to Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, etc.
      2. Firelake 25 January 2020 20: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Already taken out. Some.
    3. Mar.Tirah 22 January 2020 08: 21 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      Quote: carstorm 11
      waiting for the invasion of armored armada from overseas?)

      Unfortunately, this can be. The Pentagon is transferring its tanks to Poland to the borders of Russia. So you have to be prepared for everything. I attribute the announcement of these shells to the report on the work commissioned by the Defense Ministry, and it’s natural to use its money.
      1. carstorm 11 22 January 2020 08: 27 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        the transfer is minuscule and does not carry any operational danger. in the event of a war, all these ports will be destroyed in the first place and there’s no point in talking about any possible strengthening of them. It has long been clear that all these transfers are a show for Europeans. at what dual purpose. and scare that would not twitch and at the same time show that they did not quit. Well, what can one tank brigade on our theater? nothing.
    4. Ratmir_Ryazan 22 January 2020 10: 48 New
      • 8
      • 9
      -1
      waiting for the invasion of armored armada from overseas?


      And that our T-72 has not had to engage in battle with enemy tanks lately ?!

      In the same Iraq, in fact, our tanks could not show any resistance to the Abrams.

      Tomorrow Ambrams and Leopards will stand along the perimeter of Our country from Georgia to the Baltic states and it will be very bad if our tanks are powerless in front of them.
      1. carstorm 11 22 January 2020 11: 37 New
        • 6
        • 5
        +1
        Of course they couldn’t be in that modification. Well, it’s like now, for example, against modern 72, throw 62 into the battle with conservation. it was foolish to hope that the modification of m and so mediocre from 82 will somehow become better), but the only thing is that the article openly states about the procurement of our army and that means we have to try on everything. and not to tanks of 30 years old modification on BV
        1. Ratmir_Ryazan 22 January 2020 14: 45 New
          • 11
          • 11
          0
          Vom specifically everyone has already tried on 650 mm armor penetration "Lekalo" against 800-900 mm equivalent to the armor of modern Western tanks.

          But Western BOPS flashing 850-900 mm of armor.

          Our tanks for the Abrams and Leopards are just targets.

          And it’s very stupid to think that our tanks will not have to fight.
          1. Firelake 25 January 2020 20: 12 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            We have different calculation methods. So all this is not very accurate.
      2. Alexey RA 22 January 2020 12: 43 New
        • 11
        • 3
        +8
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        In the same Iraq, in fact, our tanks could not show any resistance to the Abrams.

        In Iraq, it was not about tanks. The pure battle of ideal tanks with ideal tanks in a liquid vacuum is generally extremely rare. And in Iraq, two structures met, one of which, having won air superiority, simply drained the ground structures of the other side to a state that excluded meaningful organized resistance.
        If the enemy completely controls the air, knows the location of the positions and rear, and inflicts corrective strikes on them by aircraft and artillery, regularly knocks out supply columns if communication is crushed both electronically (EW) and physically (by fire in coordinates from PP / RTR) - in such situations in the battle of technical characteristics are of little importance.
        1. meandr51 23 January 2020 13: 07 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Do you propose not paying attention to enemy tanks when designing shells?
          But why Americans do not? By the way, in Iraq, quite a tank battle took place. More precisely, tank beating. Abrams (like helicopters) moved at night, found ambush teschs with thermal imagers and poked them from several km. . The Iraqis quickly realized this and simply threw useless equipment. You do not want this to happen again in our country?
          1. Alexey RA 23 January 2020 14: 15 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: meandr51
            Do you propose not paying attention to enemy tanks when designing shells?

            I propose not to draw conclusions about the performance characteristics of tanks alone on the basis of the “one-goal game”.
            Quote: meandr51
            By the way, in Iraq, quite a tank battle took place. More precisely, tank beating. Abrams (like helicopters) moved at night, found ambush teschs with thermal imagers and poked them from several km. . The Iraqis quickly realized this and simply threw useless equipment. You do not want this to happen again in our country?

            So this is exactly what I am writing about: performance characteristics of shells alone in normal combined arms combat do not mean much. What is the use of having an all-penetrating scrap and an all-burning kuma if the crews do not know where the enemy is and do not see him - and the enemy shoots tanks from the air with impunity, moreover, using standard means of the tank division.
            We already stepped on this rake in 1941, when tabular superiority in performance characteristics of tanks in practice, in a collision structures, turned into a loss of 1303 T-34 by August 1, 1941
            ... in less than a month and a half of the war, Soviet troops lost about 70% of the total number of “thirty-four” lost in 1941 (1843 vehicles)
            © Ulanov / Shein
            1. meandr51 24 January 2020 18: 50 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I agree that judging by one parameter is unreasonable. It is necessary to bring all the characteristics in accordance with those of the adversary. But starting with shells is quite logical. It is known how tanks at the beginning of the war were left almost without armor-piercing ones, and those that were were pricked like nuts ...
      3. nov_tech.vrn 22 January 2020 13: 19 New
        • 10
        • 6
        +4
        In Iraq, the green arms of the American Tugriks were the secret weapon, especially to the second company.
      4. Andrey.AN 23 January 2020 14: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In Iraq, the T-72 met with the Abrams during a sandstorm, the Abrams had satellite reconnaissance, GPS, weather forecasts and thermal imagers, and Iraqis had dust before their eyes.
    5. Leeds 22 January 2020 13: 21 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Quote: carstorm 11
      who would explain why to compare the combat capabilities of vehicles the probability of meeting which is minimal and the number on this mainland is negligible ... we are waiting for the invasion of armored armada from across the ocean?)

      From this attempt to calm itself, the gap between us and the enemy crowbars does not become smaller, which does not bode well ... Something urgently needs to be developed and adopted. Let dear, albeit small, but at least at the forefront of the proposed theater.
      1. carstorm 11 22 January 2020 14: 00 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        You need to respond to real challenges and not to hypothetically possible ones. As a result, we’ll miss the important one. out of habit and our doctrine, I consider all the options only on our theater and generally do not see signs that this would change. any transfer of a significant amount over critical intelligence will immediately detect. and places of their unloading and equipment will be destroyed very quickly. this is generally a scenario from a science fiction film in our time to try to quietly move something sane from one mainland to another and not meet opposition.
        1. Essex62 23 January 2020 08: 00 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          But how can we counteract the transfer of armor to a geyropa without being at war? Will we sink their galoshes privately? Yes, even if all cash mattresses are brought to our borders, except for expressing concern, nothing will be done
          1. carstorm 11 23 January 2020 08: 08 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Let’s explain it to you in a simple way. if the abrams are brought to Europe in such quantities, then war is already inevitable or is already underway. mobilization and concentration of troops is already its beginning. There is nothing to worry about. you either drown them or die. so better not even imagine such scenarios. it doesn’t happen
            1. Essex62 23 January 2020 19: 04 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              How does not happen? May-June 1941, the western border of the USSR.
              Do you seriously think that a decision will be made to start mochilovo without a declared war or attack on our cities? This is what the military thinks, but no matter how politicians. But how about the evacuation of blood, you don’t give a damn about accounts and immovables. Horseradish with her, they’re still hoping, but kids ... And you won’t lose the factor of nuclear weapons, the last greetings can be sent to the Masons even if armadas of abrashs and cats ram our borders. No I do not believe. But I also do not believe in the scenario of the attack on the Russian Federation. Those who make decisions with them are not weak in their heads. They will undermine us, upbringing preschool children and dissolving us. Why the heck run up and after the rest of life in a comfortable bunker spend.
          2. meandr51 23 January 2020 13: 01 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            So, you have to present an ultimatum and, if the transports are not wrapped back, start hostilities. Otherwise, you have to lose the war and disappear, like the Indians.
    6. Sergey10789 22 January 2020 13: 38 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      OU!!! Is there really at least one adequate comment on the topic !!!! And I have the same opinion! The probability of a meeting between the tanks of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the USA, and even more so their confrontation, is zero. And from overseas they will not come to visit. Horror story for ov / liberalists.
    7. Prisoner 22 January 2020 20: 48 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Robots! This is DAMANTS. He and the invasion of the Martians can describe with our, of course, defeat. laughing laughing
    8. meandr51 23 January 2020 12: 59 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Few people believe in a global nuclear war. But for some reason everyone is preparing for it ... Is this stupid?
      About the same with the "tank armada."
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. rocket757 22 January 2020 07: 38 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Of course, the concept of a temporary measure, we associate with something long-term, if not eternal, but taking ammunition is still better in terms of performance characteristics than the previous one, perhaps until a new one is developed that meets the modern needs of the army.
    2. alma 22 January 2020 08: 41 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      So, a projectile piercing 200 mm of vertical armor will not be able to penetrate a 100 mm plate located at an angle of 60 degrees and having the same 200 mm of thickness along the line of sight

      Sorry, I think you were wrong - here we can talk about a slope of 30 degrees.
    3. Timeout 22 January 2020 10: 25 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Dear, why so indiscriminately plagiarize?
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      1. Armor penetration! On the "military" sites you can find numbers of 700-800mm and, even higher, armor penetration.

      How so ...

      If you are engaged in copy paste, then indicate the source. And do not pretend to be your thoughts.
      https://pikabu.ru/story/podkalibernyie_tankovyie_boepripasyi_6220726
      1. The comment was deleted.
    4. Glory1974 22 January 2020 10: 56 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Regarding the tilt: it is customary that shells work on inclined armor worse than vertical. So, a projectile piercing 200 mm of vertical armor will not be able to penetrate a 100 mm plate located at an angle of 60 degrees and having the same 200 mm of thickness along the line of sight

      much depends on the distance. The closer the firing range, the more gentle the projectile flight path. The greater the firing range, the steeper the projectile path.
  • user1212 22 January 2020 07: 17 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    They have already said so many times: these figures cannot be compared "head-on", according to official mm penetration or resistance, because there is no international standard "homogeneous armor", the calculation of its equivalent, as well as different criteria for "penetration". You cannot count one projectile / armor rating system into another. A concrete plate made of a concrete alloy makes its way through a concrete shell. And from a series of tests in the "advertising booklet" can go as the "best" result as well as "average", and even "minimum-guaranteed"
  • rocket757 22 January 2020 07: 35 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    parity in hypothetical "tank duels" with mechanized units of the ground forces of NATO member states

    Someone planning to butt with them directly, in a linear battle?
    On the battlefield there may be a mass of anti-tank weapons that hit armored vehicles at a distance more than tanks can use, for example, in all weather conditions.
    I do not justify the adoption of this ammunition, but a critical gap will be only in one possible element of the battle, which can be compensated by other means.
  • Military77 22 January 2020 08: 26 New
    • 11
    • 2
    +9
    Indeed, a miracle is not expected. After the author began to compare the densities of PURE tungsten and uranium, there is no point in reading further. For warhead shots do not use PURE metals, only and exclusively alloys !!! Even in BB discs, steel is a ferrite-carbon alloy. ALLOY Damantsev, ALLOY!
  • Hermit21 22 January 2020 08: 35 New
    • 9
    • 5
    +4
    The author does not take into account three factors:
    1. The difference in methods for assessing armor penetration and armor resistance in Russia and in the west;
    2. The presence in the troops of more modern "Lead-1 / -2", incl. and with a uranium core;
    3. The presence in 1983 of each BOPS uranium "twin
    1. Andrzej k 22 January 2020 14: 38 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Exactly for point 1. The values ​​for ammunition from the USSR / Russia are calculated in accordance with the methodology used in the USSR, that is, with the achievement of 3/4, break through in the studied BOPS group. NATO standards here are less strict and require 50% penetration, plus one in the BOPS group under consideration. According to authorities like Paul Lakowski, the difference in performance can reach 8%.

      for point 2 - "Lead 1 / -2" - Are they really in line?
      1. Hermit21 23 January 2020 09: 06 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        They are mostly in stock, like so much more. For training in peacetime and if someone is not very developed, you suddenly have to pacify, "Mango" is enough. And to introduce the characteristics of the new ammunition into the T-72B3 / -80BVM / -90M control system is a matter of minutes
  • mitrich 22 January 2020 08: 46 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    On the first lines I already understood AffArA. It strikes on the wave with a swift jack, squanders filth from the line of our weapons. Why is he still not in the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation? request
  • Yrec 22 January 2020 09: 46 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    You can measure the numbers as much as you like, but you need to keep in mind that our tanks are covered in the forehead with the built-in DZ, which previously destroys / softens the BOPS. And the main anti-tank weapon of our tank is the anti-tank missile system, and not BOPS. Moreover, the battle of tanks is strictly head-to-head an extremely unlikely scenario, anyway, there will be a hit from some angle.
  • smaug78 22 January 2020 09: 51 New
    • 6
    • 7
    -1
    Cocoa "Pattern"? Another bottom from the top .BOPS ZBM-44 is Mango. The once beloved site is rapidly turning yellow. Moreover, the authors lie constantly and do not understand what they are writing about.
  • Sapsan136 22 January 2020 10: 02 New
    • 12
    • 13
    -1
    Another nonsense of the next Sumerian (expert) ... Abrams tanks have never fought with the T-72, even the Soviet model, except for the oldest T-72 Ural-E (in the export version, in a more primitive configuration, with thinner armor) and their Iraqi counterparts named in Iraq (Leo of Babylon or Saddam) ... As for the Abrams and Leopards, they burn in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, like matches, with the detonation of ammunition from Chinese copies of the ancient Soviet RPG-7 .. . One can only guess what will happen if instead of the RPG-7, these buckets will start to get quite modern nye ATGM, or kamulyativnye missiles with a tandem warhead ... What to depleted uranium munitions, their production has been mastered in the USSR, but because of the harmful effects of these weapons to the crew, they were regarded only as ammunition Third World War ...
    1. olegactor 22 January 2020 11: 21 New
      • 8
      • 6
      +2
      Yes, the author writes an article about the invulnerability of abrams .... from modern shells. and in real life, even a meeting with RPG 7 for Abrams ends very badly ... so the author is watching the news ... especially with Yemen ...
      1. V.I.P. 22 January 2020 18: 19 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        There RPGs were shot aboard and aft. Thus, any tank can be burned if it is without KAZ. By the way, the Americans are now modernizing the abrams with the installation of the KAZ Trophy.
    2. Firelake 25 January 2020 20: 17 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Lebanon has shown already.
  • Vasya Solntsev 22 January 2020 10: 26 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    And I read somewhere that due to the fact that the Americans used uranium in shells, many employees later had health problems !!!
    Maybe this was taken into account when developing our shells! ??
    what
  • Ratmir_Ryazan 22 January 2020 10: 40 New
    • 2
    • 11
    -9
    Great article. This analysis and the correct conclusion.

    We need to upgrade our tanks.
  • Negruz 22 January 2020 10: 57 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Damantsev convinced: we throw out the "pattern", "mango" - leave ....
  • Operator 22 January 2020 11: 05 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    The penetration resistance of the BOPS uranium core is higher than that of tungsten not due to pyrophoricity (spontaneous combustion of uranium in air at elevated temperatures), which arises after penetration of the armor, of course; and due to the thermoplastic self-sharpening of the uranium core in the process of breaking through the armor. As a result, the head of the core has a cone-shaped, not mushroom, shape, which facilitates the passage of the core through the armor.

    When BOPS is accelerated to a speed of 2000 m / s (plus 200 m / s for aerodynamic deceleration of the projectile at a distance of 4 km), self-sharpening also occurs at the tungsten core.

    The second drawback of the use of uranium-238 in kinetic ammunition is its property of transition to uranium-235 upon irradiation by neutrons from an explosion of the enemy’s nuclear ammunition, followed by the defeat of the tank crew by secondary neutrons from the decay of uranium-235.
    1. prodi 22 January 2020 13: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      it remains only to disperse BOPS in 5-6 kg to 2000 m / s
      1. Operator 22 January 2020 13: 47 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Up to 2200 m / s, of course.
        1. prodi 22 January 2020 14: 05 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          especially against the background of 4.6 kg and 1700 - 1800 m / s
          1. Operator 22 January 2020 14: 19 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Duc and R-1 once flew at a speed of 1,5 km / s.
            1. prodi 22 January 2020 14: 33 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              if it’s real, then without increasing the caliber, apparently again, nothing will work
              1. Operator 22 January 2020 14: 59 New
                • 3
                • 3
                0
                And I always stood for increasing the caliber to 160 mm, shortening the barrel to 30 calibers and using a controlled ARS with dorazgon on the trajectory up to 2200 m / s laughing
                1. prodi 22 January 2020 15: 20 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  your managed ARS, if it comes up recourse somewhere, at a distance of 5-10 km (no less)
                  1. Operator 22 January 2020 15: 30 New
                    • 2
                    • 3
                    -1
                    The acceleration distance of the ARS, having an initial speed of 600 m / s, to a speed of 2200 m / s with an acceleration of 160 g will be 800 meters, with an acceleration of 1600 g - 80 meters.

                    The main thing is that the thrust of the solid propellant rocket motor is enough laughing
                    1. prodi 22 January 2020 15: 32 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      and you didn’t figure out the diameter and starting weight of the rocket?
                      1. Operator 22 January 2020 15: 36 New
                        • 2
                        • 3
                        -1
                        Diameter - 160 mm, weight - 40 kg (including the solid-state plastic body of the solid propellant rocket engine 10 kg, tungsten armor-piercing core 10 kg, octogen fuel 20 kg), the pressure in the combustion chamber - 1000 atmospheres.
                      2. prodi 22 January 2020 15: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        purely for Hochma: Igla-2 MANPADS, diameter - 0.72mm, speed - 570m / s
                      3. Operator 22 January 2020 15: 55 New
                        • 2
                        • 3
                        -1
                        The diameter is 72 mm, however.

                        What is the pressure in the combustion chamber RDTT MANPADS "Igla-2"? Raise it three times and get 1710 m / s.
                      4. prodi 22 January 2020 16: 04 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Yes, I, as it were, about real, practical "achievements"
  • iouris 22 January 2020 12: 19 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    In general, tanks should not participate in "tank duels" (as a rule). Anti-tank systems must be used to destroy tanks.
  • vnord 22 January 2020 12: 24 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    In the same Iraq, in fact, our tanks could not show any resistance to the Abrams.

    Well, there is mainly T-72, of Polish assembly, and there the armor was simpler ..
  • bars1 22 January 2020 12: 47 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    In Iraq, in addition to the unimportant armor of the export T-72s, the superiority of American tanks in night vision equipment (at least in the case of the famous pogrom) affected the Iraqi losses.
  • Kostadinov 22 January 2020 12: 53 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    The upper frontal part (VLD), located at an angle of 83 ° and having a physical dimension of 50 to 80 mm, makes it possible to achieve equivalent resistance from BOPS of the order of 650-760 mm (taking into account the deviation of the trajectory caused by the close to the critical angle of inclination of the VLD of 83 degrees )

    1. A common 122 mm HE shell will break through 50 mm of the "physical size" of the VLD Abrams at a certain (large) distance.
    2. The same thing will happen with 80 mm "physical dimension" when 122 mm armor-piercing or semi-armor-piercing projectile hits at an appropriate distance.
    3. 125 mm cumulative ammunition with a slight downward slope will also deal with 50-80 mm Abrams VLD.
  • Amateur 22 January 2020 12: 54 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    I read. A set of terms and numbers without any meaning, but about tank subcaliber shells. I read it. WOW - E. Damantsev!
    Interestingly, is he also versed in sub-caliber shells or did we wean him together to write articles about radars? fool
  • Nick Russ 22 January 2020 14: 07 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    As far as I understand, the difference between tungsten and uranium is only in the greater mass of the latter. Due to what the best penetration is obtained. The rest, at hypersonic projectile speeds, does not matter.
    1. dvina71 22 January 2020 17: 52 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Nick Russ
      As far as I understand

      You don’t understand correctly .. The density of uranium and tungsten is almost the same .. At the same time, tungsten has a much higher melting and boiling point .. It comes out of this .. with the same mass, these materials need different speeds to come to the same condition when overcoming the armor.
      And from this it follows that uranium needs less speed and high penetration rates are achievable
      at a greater distance, with equal muzzle velocity ..
      Tungsten has a very high melting point ... about 4000s .. if it gets heated, at least 3.5k will break through more tungsten.
  • prior 22 January 2020 14: 27 New
    • 3
    • 6
    -3
    I tried to understand something from what was written and discussed.
    I realized that here we also have an ass.
  • Elturisto 22 January 2020 15: 06 New
    • 6
    • 7
    -1
    Abrams is crap, even Americans know it and not only them. BOPs falling into the niche between the protruding tower and the inclined sheet of the VLD are guaranteed to perforate this worthless wagon, the same applies to the gun’s mask. It also affects Merkava. It’s clear that Abrams and Merkava no one buys in the world, except Egypt, to which they were presented and now they do not know what to do with this junk. It is impossible to create a tank superior to the T-72 (90) in terms of cost-effectiveness.
    Therefore, the glamorous sketch of the author is off topic.
    1. stone 22 January 2020 18: 11 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Have you played enough in WoT? laughing No one in the world has long been creating tanks in terms of cost-effectiveness, because, as thousands of tanks have not riveted for a long time! Everyone wants to protect their crew as much as possible. Therefore, they put KAZs, cool fire extinguishing systems, battle control systems, etc. Which of these is better with the T-72 (90)?
      1. Elturisto 22 January 2020 18: 59 New
        • 3
        • 5
        -2
        Son, you didn’t say anything about the weaknesses of Abrams and Merkava. What kind of KAZ are Ambrams? How will an advanced fire extinguishing system help when BOPS gets into the vulnerabilities of these iron-covered wagons? Will the crew corpse be filled with carbon dioxide? What kind of crew protection does Merkava have in the VLD? the cover of the engine compartment 60 mm thick? Well, the Merkava abandoned by the crew didn’t burn well :) it’s something ... I poured a bucket of diesel fuel into the business assault. Therefore, before you write ... you need to think carefully ...
        1. stone 22 January 2020 19: 41 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          So before you write ... you need to think carefully ...
          Golden words! laughing
          What KAZ does Abrams have? Google at your leisure. I give a hint, the same as Merkava. I’m not even going to answer the rest of the nonsense. bully
          1. Elturisto 23 January 2020 08: 51 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            Yes, you don’t have to answer anything, everything is clear.
    2. Vanches 23 January 2020 00: 41 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Whose cow mumbled http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t-72B.htm, he remembered about the weakened zones of Abrams) in a stranger's eye a mote, but in his log you do not notice
      1. Elturisto 23 January 2020 08: 52 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        How will the presence of weaknesses in the T-72 help get rid of weaknesses in Abrams and Merkava?
        1. Vanches 23 January 2020 10: 14 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          So, so) at first they talked about the fact that the T72 doesn’t have any holes in the armor, now they remembered about loose places, okay), correct yourself further
          About the lure of Abramovich’s tower, yes, I agree with you that a direct hit by modern Bops will directly do his job, well, he’ll jam the tower there or kill someone from the crew, but if you get directly into the tower’s shoulder, you’ll get into the rush and rebound, you’ll get to the bottom of the tower and ricochet, and if it doesn’t ricochet, it’s 80mm under 83 degrees, it’s 650mm, any BPS will break its teeth by such a slope and thickness, so that although the weak zone is lured, it’s not as healthy as you imagine it
          1. Elturisto 23 January 2020 14: 11 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            Any engineering design is a compromise. An integral assessment of combat properties is important - to destroy the enemy by spending a minimum number of resources. There is no other criterion for armed struggle. The epaulettes and gun masks of any machine are vulnerable by definition. In the USSR, they got out of this situation by using a hemispherical shape towers (originally on IS-3) and abrasures without a mask. (the British and the Challenger and Chiften took over this experience). This eliminated the ricochet in the field of epaulettes and problems with the mask's durability, since the latter has weight limits The use of a counterbalance on the breech of the gun, an increase in the power of drives and accumulator batteries, and as a result of an increase in mass and size properties. The BPS punching the shoulder strap of the Abrams or Merkava tower (50 mm) saves enough energy to hit people and devices inside the BO fragments, armor spatter , direct hit, shell shock, fire). I have not yet indicated the case of the defeat of the VLD Abrams and Merkava with a longitudinal roll, when the angle is reduced to 60 degrees or more degrees ... well, what about feeding and sending 25 kg of cartridges during movement in towers A Brahms and Merkava is just a trand ... a carcass of the light ... And what concern can there be for tankers in general?
            1. Vanches 23 January 2020 17: 55 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Well, yes, yes, I also agree, shooting from top to bottom it can be pierced, as well as any other part of the armor, if you exceed T72 in the front of the hull, you can also shoot successfully, in Karabakh there was even a case when from BMP 2 to the forehead 72 shot down, an exceptional case, but it was, by the way, the shoulder strap is not 50, but 125mm, although it will still be not enough against the BPS (
              About the mask, the little scheme you watched, the embrasure t72b http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t-72B.htm,, there it is extremely exhaustive about the resistance of the armor in this place, 100mm bm 8 penetrates into the mask, unimportant armor, about Abrams I only know this https://topwar.ru/23416-analiz-bronirovaniya-tanka-m1a2-sep-abrams.html, the minimum size there is 550 mm, not bad then
              Loading a gun on the go, I’ve never been a tanker, but judging by all the videos, the Abrams do not seem to suffer from low rate of fire, and their strong European tank challenge and during the Greek tender, the Abrams confidently fired on the move, and shot quickly if the tank on the spot, the loader is completely controlled for 3–4 seconds with a projectile.
              But the Soviet AZ, as the shells are spent in it, works slower and slower and it can’t be fixed, the loading cycle up to 20 seconds will be like 2 or 2 shots per minute, generally, although I myself am for tanks with AZ, but specifically our type AZ-carousel, in my opinion, it’s a very big mistake, the pluses are dubious, and the minuses directly stick out.
              1. Elturisto 23 January 2020 23: 32 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Demonstrations for that and demonstrations ... :) Window dressing is driving everywhere. Once again ... on a swinging platform loading the guns with the rounding of the cartridge is fraught with great inconvenience, physical exertion and simply the danger of tram limbs with a semi-atom of a wedge lock - fingers can be chopped off only in way. Therefore, loading on the go of a heavy cartridge the task for the circus magician-gun is stabilized and there is no turret. In the T-72, the autoloader works synchronously with the stabilizer. What rate of fire of Abrams or Merkava can go s? Therefore, any sofa expert enthusiastic howling about the possibility of growth BOPS size simply. (besides the physical dimensions of the placement are designed for well-defined size of the cartridge).
                In the USSR, there were 2 types of AZs on the T-64 and T-72, the latter showed great efficiency. Shooting at speed is good at shows, in practice, it takes time to aim, firing from short stops, a regular shot is fired from the next short stop, and it can be one minute and five.
                As for the failure of the tank as a result of shelling 30mm 2 A42, multiple shell hits cause cracking of the cemented armor regardless of the type of tank. In addition, all protruding shelling in the form of -KAZ, panoramic sights and other things will be swept away in seconds. A similar effect will be achieved and in the event of a mine or shell being blown up near the tank. At the T-72, the sights are sunk into the body of the tower and they can only be hit from the front by an accurate hit. Therefore, all sorts of these newfangled wagons like abrams, leopard or merkava garbage, by and large, tank destroyers (they were actually designed for this purpose), with limited maneuverability and low combat value. Well, of course, business interests will never allow this fact to be recognized. The T-72 was produced under license in Czechoslovakia, India, Iran, China and is in service in dozens of countries, the practice is the measure of truth ...
                1. Vanches 24 January 2020 22: 19 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Window dressing ??? !!! There could be a contract for a thousand tanks, a very solid jackpot considering the fact that the Omsk plant was SURVIVING then, unfortunately the t80s could not show themselves worthy then. He cuts off his fingers only on the road, well this is a very dubious argument, the shutter runs smoothly and with minimal dexterity there should be no problems, and if I have them I have absolutely no information on this subject. Shooting, I don’t understand, WHY, you are defending the Soviet az, WHY, it has a practical rate of fire lower than that of the loader, a high fire hazard, and in the end it’s easier to hit than an ammunition in the rear of the tower (the side of the tower can be made at a large slope, unlike from the sides of the hull, there you can use multi-layer armor, a pancake tower can just be deployed with your forehead to the enemy !!!! as you actually thought, it won’t work with the hull) just hypothetically imagine that you see a tank, it’s standing to you, you’ll become arrows Ya in the center of the silhouette of the tank, penetration, fire, T72 tore into pieces, do you need it? do you think if domestic technology is a priori the best? can it be criticized or perfected? Well, it’s funny in Iraq that there will soon be no operational T72, everyone burst like firecrackers, in Ukraine, the T64 launches the tower hundreds in the stratosphere, and right into the stratosphere (
                  1. Elturisto 25 January 2020 12: 27 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    Once again, an automatic machine is a blessing. The practical rate of fire depends on many factors, 120 rounds weigh more than 30 kg. Is there a desire to work as a loader? The wedge bolt fires quickly enough. An ammunition explosion in 100% of cases puts any tank out of order.
                    American Iraq has long been disassembled on the Internet about Iraq, it makes no sense to retell. By the way, the Cypriots bought exactly the T-80 and BMP-3.
                    In general, American-German-Israeli propaganda is needed to push their junk, out there the Abrams generally give away :).
                    1. Vanches 25 January 2020 20: 37 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      I have no desire to be charging, but I don’t want to burn in our boxes alive and I won’t, I’d better bend it off, and the education will not take me into tankers. An explosion, yes, but in Abrams, shells rarely explode, they just burn out, in the vast majority of cases, http://artofwar.ru/p/ponamarchuk_e/text_0300.shtml, as you can see, it was in battle that there were almost no irretrievable losses in tanks, here, how to do it
  • tochila 22 January 2020 17: 38 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    From this number of letters, I clearly understood one thing - NATO tankers will suffer from hair loss, poor potency and (hali likes) various oncologies and genetic mutations of the offspring!
  • Kostadinov 22 January 2020 18: 26 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    Quote: stone
    Have you played enough in WoT? laughing No one in the world has long been creating tanks in terms of cost-effectiveness, because, as thousands of tanks have not riveted for a long time! Everyone wants to protect their crew as much as possible. Therefore, they put KAZs, cool fire extinguishing systems, battle control systems, etc. Which of these is better with the T-72 (90)?

    1. In the capitalist world they never created tanks in terms of cost-effectiveness, they always created weapons only in terms of maximum cost-killed. Therefore, they put all the children of the system to calm the hired crew.
    2. But the mercenaries are well aware that the maximum and best protection at the slightest danger is to flee or surrender.
  • Tokhtamysh 22 January 2020 18: 27 New
    • 1
    • 14
    -13
    When the enemy amplifies armor, increase the projectile. Since it is unrealistic to put new cannons of a larger caliber on all tanks, the projectile is lengthened. Which is what the Americans are doing. But Russia cannot afford such a thing, since only standard-length shells climb into the automatic loader. The automatic loader (AZ), which was so proud of the patriotic soviet gopot, turned out to be DEAD for the development of the tank. And without a tank, a tank cannot. There is no charge at all. And there is no place for him. Which turns all T-72/90 into obsolete trash. With which I congratulate the soviet gopota.
    1. Elturisto 22 January 2020 19: 05 New
      • 4
      • 5
      -1
      Uncle znaktok, if somewhere there is trash then in your head. With an increase in the length of the projectile, the mass also grows, and therefore a propellant charge of a greater mass and volume is needed. This leads to an increase in internal volume. And with it a mass of exaluation costs, and a corresponding decrease in security. The T-72 has no weak spots in the defense, but Abrams and Merkava have.
    2. ZAV69 22 January 2020 22: 12 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      With an increase in the projectile, weight and size increase. On the go, you just might not be able to recharge. Or loader corrupted crippled. And know the automatic loader throws yourself into the trunk.
  • tank64rus 22 January 2020 19: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There are a lot of conversations. You just need to put the plate equivalent to the actual armor resistance of the Abrams plate and fire from different distances and at different angles, and then argue what and how.
    1. dvina71 22 January 2020 19: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: tank64rus
      There are a lot of conversations. You just need to put the plate equivalent to the actual armor resistance of the Abrams plate and fire from different distances and at different angles, and then argue what and how.

      Yes, they did .. only these results will we know in 40 years ..
  • kamikaze 22 January 2020 19: 40 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    if the pattern doesn’t help, we will knock out the ptrk menagerie with carnets. they have already justified themselves in Iraq against American tanks with uranium protection
  • VLADIMIR MIRONOV 22 January 2020 20: 21 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    I see that the people in their “battle for uranium” forgot one thing: such a moment — in the confrontation of the RF-NATO armies, the MBTs will first of all be destroyed at the locations of the WTO, AIRPLANES, HELICOPTERS ... the remnants of the MBT will feel all the charm of RPGs, LNG, PTGs. .. and already what will remain ... probably ... maybe ... accidentally meet each other on the battlefield ... if you're lucky ...
    so this "problem" is very far-fetched ... purely my opinion on this matter.
  • alex-defensor 22 January 2020 20: 35 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    JUST ONE QUESTION!
    Where did the author get the data from?
    (with all due respect to Damantsev)

    But another writer writes like this:
    The upgraded T-80BVM T-80BVM tanks can use 3BM59 Lead-1 and 3BM60 Lead-2 ammunition. According to unofficial information, the first has a tungsten carbide core (armor penetration of 700–740 mm steel at a distance of up to 2 km), the second with a uranium alloy (800–830 mm)


    Who to believe ... and most importantly, where did they get so much "secret information" from?
    Oh, these writers.
  • Grading 22 January 2020 20: 44 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Quote: olegactor
    Yes, the author writes an article about the invulnerability of abrams .... from modern shells. and in real life, even a meeting with RPG 7 for Abrams ends very badly ... so the author is watching the news ... especially with Yemen ...

  • The comment was deleted.
  • Zabvo 22 January 2020 21: 15 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    They drank money, society was shaking, everyone is happy, and what’s the result of this “Curve” for the country's defense is not cold, it’s not hot it’s the tenth thing. Without 2A82-1M, talking about any normal crowbar is not necessary. Say M829A4 harmful to the crews, well, it is harmful only to the T-72 and T-90 crews ...
  • AB
    AB 22 January 2020 21: 59 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Reading the comments, I tried to understand how I was transferred to the website of nuclear physicists? I didn’t seem to click links, the backing on the page was from Military Review, thoughtfully ... Or maybe it's still Military Review?
  • Pavel Yashkov 22 January 2020 22: 12 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Yes, there it is already clear along the length of the projectile that the projectile is not very penetrating. Just everything rests in AZ. I still don’t understand why they rejected the Burlak project instead of 72b3. There aft AZ allowed significantly longer projectiles to use. Everything looks like some sort of conspiracy ....
  • storm 22 January 2020 23: 47 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    How many comments in the heat of the day, fast neutrons and nuclear energy, but did not see a single real proposal how to increase the power of Russian tanks.
    The way out is actually simple, the new Armata and T-90 Breakthrough-3 need to be purchased with a 152 mm caliber gun.
    In order not to repeat the situation of 1943 when our T-34-76 collided with the "impenetrable" T-4, Panthers and Tigers.
    The release of T-34-85 corrected the situation, allowed the formation of anti-tank companies and battalions inside tank brigades, and the T-34-76 "old men" became more and more infantry tanks.
    So now the new T-14-152 and T-90-152 will take on the fight against the Abrams, Tigers and Challengers, and the modernized T-72B3 (125) fire support for the infantry and the fight against infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and not the most modern tanks.
    1. Vanches 23 January 2020 00: 54 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      The ammunition must be taken out of the fighting compartment and the tank will immediately become prettier, and breakthrough 3 is such a solution, there’s the same AZ under the policeman, it didn’t stop being a turret
      Damn so many projects, patents, and tankers still sit in the powder keg
  • shinobi 23 January 2020 01: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    To break through a modern tank in the forehead is aerobatics which is reckless to reckon in battle.
  • Shuttle 23 January 2020 11: 03 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Remark No. 1 is econgomic. Tungsten is quite expensive metal and quite rare. A shell made of uranium (U-238 alloy, of course) is about three times cheaper than tungsten.

    Remark No. 2. No less important. The ciphers of our ammunition are not written as in the article, i.e. ZBM (ze-be-em), and 3BM (tri-be-em).


    Disclaimer: everything that is written below I honestly poked from an article written by Vladimir Tuchkov on the site of "FreePress". Where did he get this info in the publication "FreePress" is not indicated. An article in the section "Armies and Wars / Military Review" is called: "The Russian Lekalo will burn the American Abrams."
    So:
    Armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells: how is this done with us and with them

    Even not too significant news on the military-technical topic can lead to a detonation of the information sphere. The publication in Izvestia, which could be considered fresh in the nineties, suddenly provoked an emotional rebuke from the American online edition of Defense Blog.

    Izvestia reported that the military-industrial complex should transfer 2 armor-piercing feathered subcaliber shells 3BM44 Lekalo to the armored forces by mid-summer. And that they will become a horror for the Abrams American tanks, because the Lekalo BPS is capable of penetrating 650 mm of homogeneous armor from a distance of 2 kilometers.

    I must say that the news here lies solely in the fact of the release of these shells, and not in their novelty. Shells "Lekalo" were adopted in the late 90s. And only now it came to their mass production. The Lekalo replaces the Soviet-era Mango subcaliber shells, which have more modest armor penetration. Both Mango and Lekalo are intended for firing from a 2A46 smooth-bore gun of 125 mm caliber, which are used on all Russian tanks. The exception is the T-90M “Breakthrough” tank, which has a more powerful weapon and, accordingly, its armor-piercing shells, have greater armor penetration.

    Defense Blog immediately responded to this publication, deciding to defend the honor of the uniform of American tank builders. And at the same time debunk Russian competitors. At the same time, the American magazine The National Interest was chosen as an expert source for the blog, one of the publications of which says that the thickness of the frontal projection of the Abrams tank turret is 800 mm. And so the Beks Lekalo is not able to hit either an American tank or other NATO tanks - the German Leopard-2, the French Leclerc, the British Challenger-2

    This statement contains two errors - logical and technical.

    1. Izvestia does not claim that the Abrams can be hit by a sub-caliber projectile only if it hits the frontal projection of the tower, which is the most protected. The front projection of the housing is much less protected. And even the side projections of the tower, which are protected by a composite sandwich, may well penetrate even the BOPS of the previous generation "Mango". The same can be said about the security of the remaining NATO tanks.

    2. There is a physical thickness of the tank armor, it can be measured with a tape measure, not paying attention to the structure of the armor, which can be multilayer using various materials. But there is another characteristic that shows how much protection is able to withstand shells of one or another principle of action - armor-piercing subcaliber or cumulative. Only in the case when the armor is a continuous and homogeneous (homogeneous) plate, then these two characteristics are the same.

    Abrams has three-layer armor - armor plates 60 and 100 mm thick and composite material between them. For the forehead of the tower, the thickness of the composite material, i.e. "Fillings" - 700 mm. However, for BOPS, this is equivalent to a thickness of homogeneous steel of 650 mm, which is true for 80% of all Abrams produced in the USA. For cumulative shells, this is equivalent to 1050 mm thickness. In 20% of the tanks of the last modification, the homogeneous armor protection of the forehead of the tower is 900 mm.

    As you can see, Beks "Lekalo" is able to hit "Abrams" in any part of the tank, not excluding the forehead of the tower. Well, in the case of the latest modifications of the tank, all projections of the tank’s body, as well as side projections of the tower, are affected.

    With other NATO tanks, the situation is about the same with regard to the protection of the tower’s forehead. Leopard 2 - 640 mm. Leclerc - 620-640 mm. “Challenger-2” - 590-620 mm.

    But it should be borne in mind that in order to achieve its maximum armor penetration, BPS must hit the surface at a right angle to it. As the angle of attack decreases, the armor penetration of the “crowbar” decreases, as BOPS is called, since it is a long core accelerated to a hypersonic speed of about 5 M from extra-strong material with a small diameter of about 25 mm. In modern BOPs, either tungsten alloys or depleted uranium are used as the core material.
    Improving the quality of BOPS, on a superficial glance, is quite simple. To increase armor penetration, it is necessary to increase the energy, which is composed of the mass of "crowbar" and its flight speed. That is, its length must be increased, because an increase in diameter is unacceptable - this will dampen the flight speed. And to increase the initial speed, one must either increase the volume of the propellant mixture of the propellant charge, or increase its energy quality. As a result, the length of the projectile increases. But you can increase it in a very limited range, because it is necessary to fit into the length of the gun’s chamber, and also not to get outside the working area of ​​the automatic loader. There is another very subtle point - the organization of a centered span of the long core of the projectile in the barrel of large diameter.

    Lekal uses tungsten. But in the case of the use of depleted uranium, armor penetration increases by 10-15% due to the fact that uranium has a larger specific gravity. That is, it can reach almost 750 mm. In this connection, we can assume that at the moment the Scientific Research Institute of Engineering named. VV Bakhireva, who created the Lekalo, is developing its uranium modification.

    However, the situation for NATO tanks is further exacerbated if the armor-piercing shells Lead (tungsten) and Lead-1 (depleted uranium) are used against them. The penetration resistance of these BOPS is 650 mm and 750 mm, respectively. These shells were developed at about the same time as the Pattern. But their production was also greatly delayed in time.
    The most powerful Russian armor-piercing shells for a 125 mm caliber gun are Vacuum-1 (tungsten) and Vacuum-2 (depleted uranium). Their armor penetration is 800 mm and 900 mm. However, due to the fact that their length exceeds the existing Russian BOPS samples, they can be used in a cannon that has not only a longer barrel, but an elongated chamber. This gun - 2A82 - is installed on two Russian tanks: on the promising T-14 on the Almaty platform and on the T-90M Breakthrough (this is the latest and most advanced modification of the T-90 MBT).

    However, due to the fact that the readiness of the T-14 was somewhat delayed, and the modernization of existing tanks to the level of T-90M had just begun, the appearance of the BOPS “in the everyday life” will not happen soon.

    Well, now you can find out how unique the new Russian developments of armor-piercing sub-caliber shells are.

    In the United States, three 120 mm caliber shells are used, each of which is based on depleted uranium. The first two - M829A1 and M829A2 - have approximately the same length (740 mm) as Lead and Lekalo, which suggests that they have approximately the same energy characteristics. Actually, their armor penetration is about the same - 650 mm and 710 mm, respectively.

    The length of the M829A3 projectile is 924 mm (for the "Vacuum" - 900 mm). Its armor penetration is 770 mm.

    However, another shell is approaching, the mass production of which is planned to be deployed in the near future - M829A4. Its characteristics were not disclosed. There are only statements similar to those made in Izvestia regarding Lekala - the M829A4 will be able to hit any modern or promising tank.
  • Alexander I 23 January 2020 11: 10 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    I read the comments, I did not become a nuclear physicist)))
  • Sergei N. 23 January 2020 14: 22 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Comrades! Expensive! And where did the information come from that 3BM44 (or 3BM44M) is "Pattern"? What does the "Pattern" even exist? What is the contract for the production of the "Pattern" between the "NII them. VV Bakhirev" and the Russian Ministry of Defense?
    1. smaug78 23 January 2020 15: 27 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      According to the GRAU index: “Lekalo” - 3БМ42М as part of BPS 3БМ44М. And they buy 3BM42 as part of BPS 3BM44, that is, the usual "Mango" .. They threw the yellow "Izvestia", and picked up the rapidly yellowing TopWar. (((
      And here is the contract card: https://zakupki.gov.ru/223/purchase/public/purchase/info/common-info.html?regNumber=31908725606
      1. Sergei N. 23 January 2020 16: 31 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Lekal has no GRAU index, because there is no such product, there was only research.
        All that is designated 3BM42, 3BM44 and 3BM42M, 3BM44M are Mango and Mango-M.
        What lies in the procurement notice 31908725606, and not in the contract card - I will write a little later.
  • Andrey.AN 23 January 2020 15: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    For hypersonic tungsten scrap, homogeneous steel is the same as for a sludge bullet. Here the machine for combat swimmers first also beat with long "crowbars". The new two-medium assault rifle has other ammunition, more than one length of scrap can solve.
  • Sergei N. 23 January 2020 16: 06 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    smaug78, partially agree.

    So, as a person sitting on these products, I inform:
    1. "Pattern" does not have a GRAU index. There was such work, but the product was never born.
    2. The 3VBM19 index, appearing on the Internet, has nothing to do with Lekalo - this is another, also unborn product.
    3. "Mango" (3VBM17 shot) is: 3BM42 (the projectile itself) + 3BM44 (the projectile with an additional propelling charge hung on it) + 4Ж63 (the main propelling charge).
    Mango-M, 3BM42M, 3BM44M are the working designations for the modernized Mango product that is being developed. 3BBM17-02 indexes with 3BM42-01 projectile are also used.
    Penetration "Mango-M" against "Mango" according to the "NII them. VV Bakhirev" 280mm / 60 deg against 220 mm / 60 deg.

    The contract with the Ministry of Defense, especially with a deadline of 30.08.2020/51/4, especially with a cost of XNUMX million rubles. does not exist. If someone has a contract number - give me the last XNUMX digits and the date of conclusion - I will answer.

    I regret that much of the comments on several articles on the reputable "VO" was written in vain.

    All good!
    1. smaug78 23 January 2020 16: 13 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      I will repeat for you: https://zakupki.gov.ru/223/purchase/public/purchase/info/common-info.html?regNumber=31908725606
      And please tell me the sources of your information "Mango-M, 3BM42M, 3BM44M."
      I used from here: http://www.russianarmor.info/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo_r.html
      1. Sergei N. 23 January 2020 21: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, we’ve figured out this purchase: the customer, NIMI, offers someone, in the interests of the Ministry of Defense on state orders, to make 30.08.2020 pcs for 51 million rubles for the period of August 2000, XNUMX. ordinary mango. This is a Wishlist of the Ministry of Defense, and not a real contract (the identifier number is indicated). But knowing the real prices of products, cooperation and terms of production, I can say one thing - this is fantastic, unreal.
    2. Sergei N. 23 January 2020 16: 17 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      It is not clear that I did not write that. Let's take away the superfluous, let's clean about the "IN". People don’t understand what they are writing about, and I’m trying to explain to them.
      I’ve been on your site for 5 years, I decided to write comments on the obvious fake for the first (!) Time, and you do that !!!
      1. smaug78 23 January 2020 16: 30 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        The fact that the fake - it was clear immediately after the publication of "Stars". And why do not you want to comment on the procurement link that I duplicated at your request, as well as provide links to your sources of information about Mango-M?
        1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Sergei N. 23 January 2020 16: 41 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Well, you trampled on my respect for your site.
        I am not surprised that more and more any incorrect information appears on the site.
        Could at least write something on E-mail, and you stupidly jam all.
        Now I understand why the designer at NIMI, when talking with them about articles about Lekalo on your site, simply wave it off - the rubbish is written, but nothing can be done.
        1. smaug78 23 January 2020 16: 43 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Thanks, it's over, but you finally convinced that HBO is a yellow publication with such authors.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Sergei N. 23 January 2020 17: 06 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            I wrote a big comment with indexes, characteristics, etc. (above), and the admin cut me off first - forbade me to write comments. I was indignant and then everything appeared.
            I’m sitting on these products myself - hence the info, first-hand, you can believe it.
            The purchase link is now being verified.
            1. smaug78 23 January 2020 17: 08 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              And what is the link to check?))) And it’s very interesting about “Mango-M” and “Lekalo”, as I realized that the products were never taken into service. And I apologize for the harshness drinks
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. smaug78 23 January 2020 17: 31 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  And what's wrong, a tender is posted on the official website? http://www.russianarmor.info/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo_r.html here it says a little differently.
                  1. Sergei N. 23 January 2020 20: 10 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    I am poorly versed in the tender documentation, but following the link I find a procurement notice posted by "NIMI" and the company is a customer in this procurement, that is, it is going to purchase something. Tomorrow I will find out the subject of this purchase, then I will inform.
                    As for the link - there, after the Lekalo indices, there are question marks.
                    So the author is not sure. I do not know what kind of education the author has, but the terminology with which he deciphers the product indices does not correspond to the profile one. I can not be sure of his professionalism.
                    1. Sergei N. 23 January 2020 21: 43 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Well, we’ve figured out this purchase: the customer, NIMI, offers someone, in the interests of the Ministry of Defense on state orders, to make 30.08.2020 pcs for 51 million rubles for the period of August 2000, XNUMX. ordinary mango. This is a Wishlist of the Ministry of Defense, and not a real contract (the identifier number is indicated). But knowing the real prices of products, cooperation and terms of production, I can say one thing - this is fantastic, unreal both in terms of time and cost.
                      1. Sergei N. 24 January 2020 09: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Indeed, NIMI has a contract with the Ministry of Defense for the production of 2000 ordinary Mangoes in 2020, but in completely different terms and with a completely different, real amount.
                      2. smaug78 24 January 2020 15: 40 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Please kindly link to the contest.
            2. Sergei N. 23 January 2020 20: 05 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              My comments are deleted. I don’t know how to write differently. "Pattern"
              how BOPS does not exist. And “Mango-M” has even been exhibited by “NIMI” at “Army-2019”, there is a photo on the internet.
            3. Sergei N. 23 January 2020 20: 55 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              A couple of lines from the Army 2019 to Mango-M in the text here. Only this product is not called so directly, but is designated as "experimental." Actually, I have already said that Mango-M is still a working name.
              http://www.oborona.ru/includes/periodics/defense/2019/0607/135927018/print.shtml
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. The comment was deleted.
  • wow
    wow 23 January 2020 16: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And even more important, WHO is sitting in this tank! More important is even what type of uranium or tungsten is used in the above armor-piercing shells !!!
  • komandir8 23 January 2020 18: 14 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    To combat tanks, through the barrel of a 125 mm tank gun, the Reflex M anti-tank missile system with Invar-M missiles will surely penetrate 900 - 1000 mm of homogeneous armor. The warhead of the rocket consists of two components. The first, located in the bow of the rocket, is designed to overcome the dynamic defense of the target. The main charge, in turn, directly affects the target. On tanks "Abrams" of all modifications, there are no such complexes. A caliber shells will apparently be used for other armored purposes.
  • Chaldon48 23 January 2020 18: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And there will be no duels between the Abrams and other NATO tanks and Russian tanks. Both Russia and the United States will beat enemy tanks from helicopters or ATGMs. Of course, in the event of a full-blown conflict, a collision of a tank with a tank may occur somewhere, but this will most likely be a rare case, nothing more
  • Falcon5555 23 January 2020 19: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Do the “coastal forces of the Russian Navy” even have tank battalions? For some reason, Damantsev is concerned about their "armor penetration" in the first place ...
  • Falcon5555 23 January 2020 19: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Shuttle
    uranium has a higher specific gravity
    Somewhere they wrote, and I believe that it is true that uranium is more effective than tungsten not because of the specific gravity, but because of the greater atomic weight, i.e., the weight of atoms, and not unit volume. The atomic weight of uranium is about 1/3 more, i.e., a lot. I believe that this is why the Americans add it to the armor, because atomic weight is probably important there too.
  • smaug78 23 January 2020 21: 07 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Sergey N.
    I am poorly versed in the tender documentation, but following the link I find a procurement notice posted by "NIMI" and the company is a customer in this procurement, that is, it is going to purchase something. Tomorrow I will find out the subject of this purchase, then I will inform.
    As for the link - there, after the Lekalo indices, there are question marks.
    So the author is not sure. I do not know what kind of education the author has, but the terminology with which he deciphers the product indices does not correspond to the profile one. I can not be sure of his professionalism.

    And where did you see the Lekal indexes by reference? Please tell me ... and to be honest, after that there will be a negative opinion about you ...
    1. Sergei N. 24 January 2020 08: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And here on this link http://www.russianarmor.info/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo_r.html on russianarmor.info it is indicated: OBPS "Lekalo" (A.ch. 3BM-42M ?; projectile 3BM-44M?) (n / a 1991)
      Question marks is this an index element? Or maybe yes, or maybe no?
      In addition, anyone who writes ammunition indices through a dash (in this case) does not know that this is a misspelling. From here I draw conclusions. Well, you do, please.
      By the way, I gave a few of my comments above in response to yours - regarding procurement, about Mango-M, etc.
      1. smaug78 24 January 2020 15: 38 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        "In addition, the one who writes ammunition indices through a dash (in this case) does not know that this is a misspelling. From here I draw conclusions. Well, you do, please." - see the date of creation of the site. The author of the site is a well-known and respected personality. And tell me, please, where can I get acquainted with your publications?
        1. Sergei N. 24 January 2020 19: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Over the past XNUMX hours I wrote a few comments - both last night and this morning as the information is refined.
          I have no complaints about the site’s author, so I’ve been studying this site for a long time and consider it one of the best.
          But when the very publications about Lekalo and the state contract began to appear, and people rushed to discuss the characteristics of some obscure products, I just had a desire to clarify the situation - there are no new shells after Mango, except for Lead-1 and Lead-2. One of them is a depleted uranium core.
          And I draw information directly from designers and from product documentation, I have this opportunity. As well as getting information on any NIMI contracts.
          The ammunition itself, and at the same time the military representative, is therefore so scrupulous about the correctness of indexes and terminology.
          But if you don’t like it, we’ll end there.
          All the best.
    2. Sergei N. 24 January 2020 08: 27 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Well, again - I answer you, but they block me. They do not want to see the refutation of real bullshit on their site.
      If you want to understand the question, I’m ready for a personal meeting, but I don’t know how to exchange contacts. This is generally my first experience in the comments, despite 5 years of reading "VO".
      I will say one thing - the one who writes the product index through the dash and calls 3BM-42M? active part, and 3BM-44M? shell, he is not one of the specialists in these products.
      1. smaug78 24 January 2020 18: 53 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        You know, dear and correct, that you are being blocked. In addition to pouting your cheeks and positioning yourself as a bearer of secret knowledge, you did not notice anything during the day.
        PS And "crying Yaroslavna" about blocking by bad administrators ...
        1. Sergei N. 24 January 2020 20: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Yes, I don’t get info on the Internet like many, because I communicate with product documentation and with live designers, so I can’t write a lot directly.
          You need to go to exhibitions or read and watch reviews on them, if you are interested in the topic - there are all the new things that you can and should discuss, and not just dig in the internet and, after throwing in phony information, rant about efficiency and hang noodles on the ears of all honest people (this not personally addressed to you) - right now we don’t know how to buy, like all tanks and we will be happy. And the people read and go on this bullshit.
          Another comment above.
          Good luck.
  • Fishery 23 January 2020 21: 12 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    faintly imagine a duel a tank forehead) I think a couple of three helicopters will insure Abrams)) and he will shoot from a maximum distance) there are no fools sitting there)
  • Kostadinov 24 January 2020 13: 35 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Tonya
    faintly imagine a duel a tank forehead) I think a couple of three helicopters will insure Abrams)) and he will shoot from a maximum distance) there are no fools sitting there)

    The greater the distance, the worse for Abrams. Look at its thin upper frontal leaf at a very wide angle. The huge horizontal projection of Abrams is an ideal target. It is possible to develop a semi-armor-piercing projectile and decreases the charge to them and pounds according to Abrams.