Does the tank need a 152 mm gun?


The desire to put a more powerful cannon on the tank has always been: along with security and mobility, firepower is one of the main characteristics tank. From stories The development of tanks is known that with each new generation the caliber of the gun increased more and more. Today, Western tanks have a gun caliber of mainly 120 mm, and Soviet (Russian) - 125 mm. No one has decided yet to install a higher caliber gun. In the West, tank guns of 140 mm caliber are being developed, and in the Soviet Union (Russia) several versions of a tank gun of 152 mm caliber were created, but none of the projects were implemented. What is the reason for the rejection of tanks of such a high caliber on tanks?


Tank-dangerous targets and weapons used to destroy them


The tank is a universal well-protected and mobile fire weapon of the battlefield, capable of conducting both close and long-range fire fighting with the direct support of mobile combined-arms units, as well as independent operations for the implementation and development of deep breakthroughs and the destruction of enemy military infrastructure.

The main objectives for the tank are tanks, artillery (self-propelled guns), ATGMs, lightly armored vehicles, fortified defense units, RPG calculations and enemy manpower, that is, targets that are within direct line of sight of the tank. All these goals to one degree or another are dangerous for the tank, against each of them the tank must have its own antidote. So, in the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, tank losses were distributed as follows: from anti-tank fire - 50%, aviation, RPGs, anti-tank mines - 28%, tanks - 22%. Losses of armored vehicles (tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers) during active battles in the Donbass in 2014-2016 amounted to 2596 units, of which 45% from MLRS and artillery fire, 28% from ATGMs and RPGs, 14% from tanks and mine detonation - thirteen%.

To defeat the entire set of targets, the tank has primary, auxiliary and additional weapons.

To suppress the calculations of RPGs, lightly armored targets and manpower of the enemy, auxiliary and additional weaponry of the tank is intended, to suppress lightly armored targets at long distances (up to 5000 m) guided missiles fired from a cannon are used. Auxiliary and additional weapons on the tank can be improved by installing automatic small-caliber guns and automatic grenade launchers.

For a tank gun, the main objectives are tanks, artillery (self-propelled guns), anti-tank systems and well-fortified enemy defense points. To suppress targets, four types of ammunition are included in the ammunition of the gun: armor-piercing subcaliber, cumulative, high-explosive fragmentation shells and guided missiles. In this case, the firepower of the BPS and OFS is determined by the kinetic energy of the projectile, and the KMS and SD are determined by the destructive effect of the cumulative jet.

Tank Ammunition Efficiency


For BPS, the initial velocity of the projectile is decisive, and for OFS, the velocity and mass (caliber) of the projectile, since the caliber affects the mass of the explosive delivered to the target and the striking elements. In this case, the kinetic energy of the BPS and OFS depends on the squared velocity of the projectile and is directly proportional to its mass, that is, a greater effect is produced by an increase in the velocity of the projectile, rather than its mass.

For KMS and SD, the caliber of the gun is of no fundamental importance, since it gives only the possibility of increasing the mass of explosives, and for SD also the supply of rocket fuel. Therefore, it is more promising to increase not the caliber, but the initial velocity of the projectile, determined by the muzzle energy of the gun, which can be higher not only due to the increase in caliber.

Considering the effectiveness of BPS, KMS and SD in terms of defeating armored targets, it should be noted that due to the low speed of KMS and SD, a good antidote was found against them - dynamic and active defense. How the confrontation between them ends is still unknown.

The use of hypersonic BPS to defeat armored targets, which are less susceptible to dynamic and active defense compared to cumulative ammunition, may be more effective, and not the caliber, but the initial velocity of the projectile is decisive for them.

In addition, an increase in the initial velocity of a projectile with a propellant powder charge has a physical limitation of up to 2200-2400 m / s, and a further increase in the charge mass due to an increase in caliber does not give an increase in efficiency; therefore, the use of new physical principles of projectile throwing is required.

Such directions can be the development of electrothermochemical (ETC) guns using light gases (hydrogen, helium) as a propellant charge, providing an initial projectile speed of 2500-3000 m / s or electromagnetic guns with an initial projectile speed of 4000-5000 m / s. Work in this direction has been ongoing since the 70s, but it has not yet been possible to achieve acceptable characteristics of such "gun-projectile" systems because of problems in creating high-density electric energy storage devices in the required dimensions.

The development of the effectiveness of the OFS can also go not only by increasing the caliber, but by creating more advanced explosives and developing a new generation of the OFS with providing trajectory detonation of the projectile in the zone of reliable destruction with the help of a non-contact fuse or with a remote fuse at a given distance inserted into the projectile at the moment loading guns, work on which has been ongoing since the 70s.

Increasing the caliber of the gun naturally gives an increase in firepower, but too expensive. For this, you have to pay for the complexity of the design of the tank and the automatic loader due to the placement of a larger gun and powerful ammunition, an increase in the reserved volume, an increase in the mass of armor, guns, ammunition and components of the automatic loader, as well as a possible reduction in the number of ammunition.

Installation of a 152 mm gun on the Boxer and Object 195 tanks


Increasing firepower by increasing the caliber of the gun leads to a significant increase in the mass of the tank and, as a result, to a decrease in its protection and mobility, that is, on the whole, the effectiveness of the combat vehicle decreases.

An example is the installation on the promising Boxer tank, developed at the KhKBM, in the mid-80s, a “semi-extended” 152-mm 2A73 gun. The development of the tank began with the installation of a 130-mm gun, but at the request of the GRAU, the caliber was increased and a 152-mm 2A73 gun with separate loading was developed for the tank. For the crew’s safety, the ammunition from the turret was taken out to a separate armored compartment between the fighting compartment and the military transport department, which led to the lengthening of the tank’s hull, the development of complex overall units of the automatic loading system and an increase in its mass. The mass of the tank began to fall out over 50 tons, to reduce it began to use titanium in the frontal reservation package and the manufacture of a running tank, which complicated the design and increased the cost.

Subsequently, they switched to a unitary munition and placed it in the fighting compartment. The mass of the tank decreased, but the deployment of ammunition along with the crew reduced the survivability of the tank. With the collapse of the Union, work on the tank was curtailed.

An attempt to install the same “semi-extended” 152 mm 2A83 gun was made on the Object 90 tank developed at the Uralvagonzavod in the early 195s with the crew stationed in an armored capsule in the tank body. This project was also not implemented and closed. I suppose that due to problems with the mass of the tank due to the use of the 152-mm gun and the inability to realize the required characteristics in the given mass of the tank. Apparently, taking into account the experience gained in these projects, the Armata tank also refused to install a 152-mm gun.

Attempts to install a 152-mm cannon on the tank in either the Soviet (Russian) or Western tank building schools did not lead to positive results, including due to the impossibility of achieving the optimal combination of characteristics in terms of firepower, security and mobility of the tank.

It is hardly promising to increase firepower by increasing the caliber of a gun; this will have to be achieved by creating more effective gun-projectile systems using new ideas and technologies that can increase firepower without reducing the protection and mobility of the tank.
Author:
Photos used:
avatars.mds
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67 25 February 2020 05: 39 New
    • 26
    • 4
    +22
    For KMS and SD, the caliber of the gun is of no fundamental importance, since it gives only the possibility of increasing the mass of explosives, and for SD also the supply of rocket fuel.
    This is news ... That is, a large number of explosives and fuel, it’s so ... a side effect ... Hmm, but nothing, what is the increase in armor penetration and range? Well, apparently this is so, the “little things”, as well as the diameter of the metal funnel in the cumulative charge ... Yes, here it is, it all matters. In general, the armor penetration of the COP vary from 1,5 to 4 calibers.
    For BPS, the initial velocity of the projectile is decisive
    It is no secret that kinetic energy is calculated according to the formula where the speed is taken in a square. But also the mass, the same is present there.
    It should be noted that due to the low speed of the CCM and SD, a good antidote was found against them - dynamic and active protection.
    The author mixed everything, the relatively low flight speed of the KSa and TUR to the protective properties of the remote sensing (dynamic defense) is of little importance, since it does not work against the projectile itself, but against the already formed cumulative pestle in which the speed varies in the range of 1000 - 2500 m / s.
    A 152-mm gun, while the tank is not needed, we have quite a powerful 125-mm tank guns. But it is still. Very soon, this question will be raised again, since the reservation of modern tanks is now rapidly improving, and if it is not possible to solve the problem with increasing armor-piercing properties in the current caliber, then it will probably be necessary to put guns of a larger caliber ...
    Although, I see another way to solve this problem. Creation and equipping of tanks with ammunition using the "shock core" and hitting armored objects in the roof
    1. Zaurbek 25 February 2020 06: 01 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      The phrase also surprised me .... there are still thoughts about “152mm assault guns on tanks with a howitzer barrel and ammunition.
      1. Alex777 25 February 2020 11: 21 New
        • 7
        • 5
        +2
        This 152 mm is not needed at all:
        - less ammunition
        - weight more
        - barrel survivability exactly 2 times less (500 shots versus 1000 for 125 mm).
        In 152 mm we will have a coalition. hi
        1. Uncle Izya 25 February 2020 19: 40 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          And what about 500 shots?
          They are in the boxes on conservation for how long they will stand
          1. Alex777 26 February 2020 19: 35 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            I remember the phrase of one major who, at the reception, climbed the war machine everywhere: "... this is a product for you, and for us it is to die ...".
            So ammunition, weight and everything else is important. Therefore, there are no such tanks.
            1. Uncle Izya 27 February 2020 21: 22 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              In battle, a tank and one shot may not be able to take advantage of something like this
        2. aiden 26 February 2020 02: 55 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          The life of a modern tank on the battlefield is limited. these 500 shots for his eyes ring him. And so the more damage the enemy does the better. Yes, and the same 125mm projectile the same abrams in the forehead will not take from a long distance. The same thing happened in the Second World War. Our 34 with their guns did not take German foreheads. Heavy tanks and sau rescued by artillery, or skill and luck. I believe that not only the main thing to be the first to discover, but to be able to destroy the enemy. because the same abrams will most likely destroy any of our serial tanks with return fire. It turns out either to make new ammunition under 125 or to increase the caliber of the gun
          1. Alex777 28 February 2020 11: 09 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Yes, and the same 125mm projectile the same abrams in the forehead will not take from a long distance.

            The rocket will take. The reflex is called.
            Even active armor is not a hindrance to her. hi
        3. aiden April 20 2020 22: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Average tank life on the battlefield? He will never shoot ammunition. A tank with 152mm is guaranteed to destroy any of the existing tanks. Plus huge destructive power for buildings. Speak about the range of fire
    2. Konatantin 1992 25 February 2020 06: 46 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Well, my friend, even I plus you, all claims to the authors are justified and I agree with them)))
    3. Alekseev 25 February 2020 07: 01 New
      • 7
      • 2
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      The author mixed everything

      hi
      That's right!
      Moreover,
      Quote: svp67
      What a news...
      is not news at all, because the author is clearly far from the topic, like the Decembrist from the people.
      As for the 152 mm gun, the power of ammunition of this caliber 1,5 - 2 times more than the guns 122 - 125 mm. This is not news at all.
      True, such weapons will require a heavy base, ammunition will be reduced, logistics support will be complicated, the price will rise, etc.
      Apparently, there will be another round of BTT development, history, because, as you know, it is being repeated at a new qualitative level. Those. heavy tank revival for solving your range of tasks.
      1. Zaurbek 25 February 2020 07: 42 New
        • 5
        • 5
        0
        That's why NATO is running with 130-140mm calibers .... the funny thing is that the modern 120mm and 125mm BOPS (which we don’t have yet) have already increased the weight of the tank with armor (in terms of protection) to 65t (- or +) up to 130mm will already force to raise the mass to 70tn. And so the NATO countries have a 155mm caliber.
        1. 5-9
          5-9 25 February 2020 14: 45 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Who are you and why don’t you have modern BOPs 120mm and 125mm?
          1. Zaurbek 26 February 2020 00: 19 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            120mm has a modern BOPS and 125mm does not yet have a serial modern BOPS
            1. 5-9
              5-9 26 February 2020 07: 06 New
              • 5
              • 2
              +3
              What does "modern" mean in your understanding? How do you know that there is no serial production of Lead, Lead and other Vacuums? Because leitechs from linear parts do not make selfies with them and do not upload instances with the contactee?
              1. Zaurbek 26 February 2020 11: 49 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Because the tanks do not have a 2A82 gun, designed for BOPS 900 mm long and an enhanced charge.
            2. georgiigennadievitch 6 March 2020 10: 37 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              According to statistics, about half of the affected tanks are ATGMs. it is necessary to see in this direction. More powerful and faster ATGMs, including those in high-explosive fragmentation equipment, could solve the problems of the new NATO tanks and help clear the front line of other fire weapons for both tanks and motorized rifles. In addition, they have advantage over the tank shell in range. So, if you increase the share of such ATGMs in the ammunition, then there would be no need to make any serious alterations in the tanks in service.
      2. svp67 25 February 2020 08: 00 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        hi
        Quote: Alekseev
        As for the 152-mm gun, the power of ammunition of this caliber is 1,5 - 2 times greater than that of the gun 122 - 125 mm.

        So the question is, do you need so much? Maybe 130-140 mm is enough for now?
        Quote: Alekseev
        Those. the revival of a heavy tank to solve its tasks.

        Or a heavy tank destroyer, I imagine a bunch, a tank - BPMT - TPT self-propelled guns belay
        Or the appearance of something like this ...

        1. Alekseev 25 February 2020 12: 00 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: svp67
          just imagine a bunch, a tank - BPMT - TPT self-propelled guns Or the appearance of something like this ...

          Well, something like that already happened. laughing Something like the T-35.
          And as for the bunch, that's for sure! Every weapon needs a combination, interaction with another. So the heavy tank battalions, as in and in the last war, could serve to break through a strong defense, storm the fortified areas, together with helicopters and anti-tank batteries, not only as an anti-tank reserve, but also as part of a combined-arms reserve. The gun of these machines should be more universal than the modern, basically all the same, anti-tank "smooth-bore".
          One may ask, what modern MBT cannot be used like that, Yes it can, of course. But, as in the old joke: ",,, Dad, of course, could, but the bull is better!"
          1. svp67 25 February 2020 12: 20 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Alekseev
            together with helicopters and anti-tank batteries

            drone drone ... and kamikaze drones. Any defense should be primarily choked by drones, all that with the "crews" should produce a "sweep"
          2. Narak-zempo 25 February 2020 15: 54 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Alekseev
            Well, something like that already happened. laughing Something like the T-35.

            T-35 and the like were not viable at that technological level. A multi-tower tank requires, at a minimum, stabilization of the weapon and sight of the sight in all towers.
            1. Svarog51 26 February 2020 03: 31 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And to power all stabilization drives with a cable from the nearest thermal power plant, or deliver a ship diesel generator. Power consumption and so on tanks is solid, and there is one tower, well, a module with a machine gun and other equipment. The increase in caliber, and with it the weight - leads to an increase in the power consumption of the stabilizer. This can’t be realized in the tank, you have to give up something. But then it will not be a tank.
        2. Uncle Izya 25 February 2020 19: 41 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          It already skynet some
      3. saigon 25 February 2020 13: 39 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        It seems to me or not, but again there is a discussion of the caliber of tank guns 6 "or 125 mm there with what the tank itself is considered as if on its own.
        However, the tank itself does not work on the battlefield and is covered by infantry, air defense and others.
        Once again, it is overlooked that both the air force and howitzer artillery interfere with the enemy’s defense and penetrate the tank’s road. In my 6 "tank is still an excessive weighting of the car.
        1. Saxahorse 25 February 2020 22: 59 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Quote: saigon
          However, the tank itself does not work on the battlefield and is covered by infantry, air defense and others.

          This is in theory. But in practice, the infantry certainly covers, but without much excitement. Of the bushes is desirable. And in fact, until the tank sector cleans up the infantry, it doesn’t climb on the rampage. To do this, you need a 6 "suitcase, just to quickly level the planet in this sector.
          1. saigon 26 February 2020 07: 53 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Howitzer, it will be more reliable, an extremely effective means.
            So a good art spotter solves many issues without the intervention of tanks.
            Yes, and in the village to go for armor is a dubious pleasure, this piece of iron attracts all kinds of muck to itself. So from the infantryman’s point of view, the howitzer smoothes the landscape much more reliably
            1. Saxahorse 26 February 2020 22: 42 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: saigon
              Howitzer it will be more reliable

              A howitzer is good, but direct fire is still more reliable and faster. So you need a suitcase like a howitzer and armor like a tank, so that not every RPG just pierced.
              1. saigon 27 February 2020 05: 45 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Yes, who argue about direct fire, just to master all 6 "tanks is not good.
                It is probably optimal to create a specialized assault tank.
                1. Saxahorse 27 February 2020 22: 27 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: saigon
                  It’s probably optimal to create a specialized assault tank

                  So today's tank is used exclusively as an assault tank.
                  1. saigon 28 February 2020 05: 20 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Such use of tanks raises questions about the caliber of tank guns.
                    Not from a good life, tanks are used in urban areas.
                    1. Saxahorse 29 February 2020 00: 35 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      For such a life, tanks were invented. Breaking the fortified enemy defenses. For the rest, the BMP was invented.
        2. Narak-zempo 26 February 2020 09: 49 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: saigon
          Once again, it is overlooked that both the aircraft and howitzer artillery interfere with the enemy’s defense, breaking the road to the tank

          I heard from A. Isaev's argument that during the war, the chronic weakness of Soviet artillery (in the sense of equipment and organization) forced to compensate for it with tanks - with an appropriate level of losses. I won’t give proof, because I watched a bunch of videos with him, and I don’t remember which one.
    4. Vladimir_2U 25 February 2020 09: 05 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: svp67
      ammunition using the "shock core"
      The shock core is quite simply neutralized not even by DZ, but by spaced reservation.
      1. svp67 25 February 2020 10: 41 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        The shock core is quite simply neutralized not even by DZ, but by spaced reservation.

        It’s not quite simple, since it will have to be done all over the roof, and this is overweight and an increase in size, not to mention the complexity of the cooling system ...
        1. Vladimir_2U 25 February 2020 10: 51 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Yes, it has already been done.
          only a niche with ext. Cover BC and all. So what exactly is the impact core about nothing.
          1. svp67 25 February 2020 11: 02 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            only a niche with ext. Cover BC and all. So what exactly is the impact core about nothing.

            Much has been done, but alas, there are not many covered areas, the roof of the hull is almost all bare ... and on the tower, just where the crew sits full of bare sections ...
            1. Vladimir_2U 25 February 2020 11: 08 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              The Abrams do not bother me, and the T-90ms is very well covered from above with DZ blocks, I don’t worry about Armata at all, I’ll remind you of the impact core.
      2. Bad_gr 26 February 2020 18: 02 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        The shock core is quite simply neutralized not even by DZ, but by spaced reservation.

        With the "shock core" in our arsenal are anti-aircraft mines TM-83. It is placed on the side of the road, where an explosion occurs when the tank appears in the affected area. On tests, the T-72 tank pierced through (two sides and equipment between them).
        Also, the principle of "strike nucleus" is applied to anti-helicopter mines.
        The principle is similar, but this is not the same as in cumulative grenades, where a jet is formed near the object.


        1. Vladimir_2U 27 February 2020 04: 21 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Bad_gr
          On tests, the T-72 tank pierced through (two sides and equipment between them)
          Let’s not believe, the armor penetration of the TM-83 is 100 mm, 50 m true, but so that two sides of 80-90 mm and even spaced 2 m. Min. it’s you telling a story. Well, a warhead weight of 9,5 kg and a diameter of 250 mm, as it were, are not particularly suitable for placement in a rocket / projectile / submunition.
          https://raigap.livejournal.com/366659.html
          1. Bad_gr 27 February 2020 09: 23 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Well, a warhead weight of 9,5 kg and a diameter of 250 mm, as it were, are not particularly suitable for placement in a rocket / projectile / submunition.

            There are more compact options. But this is not the essence of what is written:
            The "impact core" is formed a few meters before the object and the bulwark with bulwark is not an obstacle for it.
            1. Vladimir_2U 27 February 2020 10: 09 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Dear namesake!
              Quote: Bad_gr
              bulwark with bulwark is not an obstacle for him

              Well, what a grill! It’s after all about spaced reservations, and about DZ it was, but I can’t understand why you put the photo from the RPG.))
              Quote: Bad_gr
              There are more compact options.
              There is, of course, only their armor penetration is lower.
              1. Bad_gr 27 February 2020 10: 38 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Well, what a grill! It was a matter of spaced reservations, and DZ was

                The lattice, yes, it was not mentioned, I sailed to the heap :(
                As for the posted reservation, I came across the information about which I wrote above (on T-72), I do not know how true, therefore, there is no doubt that the posted reservation will help. And there is no doubt about the DZ, it was created for this.
    5. sen
      sen 25 February 2020 09: 29 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      For instance. Tank guided ammunition that attacks the target from above can also be attributed to two South Korean homing projectiles “KSTAM-I” (Korean Smart Tor-Attack Munition) and “KSTAM-H”. Both shells do not have a rocket engine, but are fired from a tank gun in the area of ​​the enemy tank. Unlike most modern ATGMs, during which the gunner-operator must accompany the target, KSTAM shells operate on the basis of a “shot-forgot” principle. For firing these shells, a hinged trajectory is used as in howitzer artillery.
    6. CTABEP 25 February 2020 09: 46 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      A small correction - the higher the diameter of the funnel at the KS, the higher the achievable armor penetration coefficient (although, above 100mm there isn’t much difference), and this is not 4, but 7-8 calibers now.
    7. Lopatov 25 February 2020 10: 16 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Quote: svp67
      The author mixed everything, the relatively low flight speed of KSa and TUR to the protective properties of DZ (dynamic protection) is of little importance

      But the protective properties of active protection are direct.
      The higher the rate of ammunition, the higher the likelihood of overcoming it.
      In addition, the higher the speed, the greater the “dead space” of active defense. That is, the distance at which the AZ does not have time to react to the flying ammunition.
      1. svp67 25 February 2020 10: 44 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        I am

        KAZ - active protection complex, AZ - automatic loading
        Quote: Spade
        But the protective properties of active protection are direct.

        On the one hand, and on the other, increase the speed of KAZ.
        1. Lopatov 25 February 2020 10: 47 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          AZ - automatic loader

          "AZ" active defense. In the west, APS is a complex that includes both KAZ and KOEP.
          1. svp67 25 February 2020 10: 51 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Spade
            In the West

            Each has his own ...
      2. Saxahorse 25 February 2020 23: 03 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Quote: Spade
        In addition, the higher the speed, the greater the "dead space" of active defense.

        So then it is, but the difference in the speed of the BPS and ATGMs is not at all 10 times, well, if 1.5-2 times. So KAZ confidently intercepting ATGMs with high probability and BOPS will catch. Well, it’s clear that to increase the speed of 1.5 times is also quite realistic.
        1. missuris 27 February 2020 02: 55 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          in budget ATGMs with a cumulative jet, the speed is just about 180-300 meters. those. the difference is 5-10 times. versus 1700-1800 at the bops.
          1. Saxahorse 27 February 2020 22: 23 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: missuris
            in budget ATGMs with a cumulative jet

            Why discuss junk if we are talking about promising weapons? Already today all aerial ATGMs from Helfire to the Whirlwind are supersonic. Even our tank Reflex and that 350 m / s, i.e. also supersonic. It is clear that the KAZs are against such ATGMs and are being developed. And from them to the BOPS very close. There is no reason to doubt that active defense systems will learn to hit BOPS in the near future. Moreover, the prerequisites for this have long been.

            In the photo KAZ "Iron FIST" intercepts BOPS.
    8. Alex777 28 February 2020 11: 14 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      A 152-mm gun, while the tank is not needed, we have quite a powerful 125-mm tank guns. But it is still. Very soon, this issue will be raised again, since the reservation of modern tanks is now rapidly improving

      Well yes. And then how much will the tanks weigh? 75 t? 80t?
      Already, the Abrams cannot travel anywhere in Europe. There are no bridges that can withstand them. And other obstacles. And the engineering troops are not able to provide massive guidance of suitable bridges.
      All dances with the Israeli KAZ ended in failure. hi
      1. Saxahorse 29 February 2020 00: 37 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Quote: Alex777
        Well yes. And then how much will the tanks weigh? 75 t? 80t?

        And to think or read what prevents? Five times already reminded that the T-95 with a 152 mm gun weighed 50 tons. Unlike Almaty with a gun of 125 mm but weighing 55 tons ..
        1. Alex777 29 February 2020 17: 06 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          If so smart - re-read what is written.
          I didn’t talk about our tanks, but about the Abrams.
          And not about the cannon, but about the strengthening of their reservation.
  2. remal 25 February 2020 06: 24 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    I’ve been to Sevastopol at the museum of 35 coastal batteries. 305 mm. Although it was built in 1913, and the charging process is mechanized, there are all kinds of trolleys. You can’t carry such shells on your hands. In general, managed 100 years ago. All the more strange today tanks look - all with automatic weapons, and shells are still under carry-on baggage.
  3. Amateur 25 February 2020 06: 42 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    It is hardly promising to increase firepower by increasing the caliber of a gun; this will have to be achieved by creating more effective gun-projectile systems using new ideas and technologies that can increase firepower without reducing the protection and mobility of the tank.

    Somehow associated with
  4. Svarog51 25 February 2020 06: 52 New
    • 14
    • 0
    +14
    In the Soviet Union (Russia), several versions of a 152 mm caliber tank gun were created, but not one of the projects was implemented.

    Well, why? Like it or not, it's a tank, not an SPG
    1. novel66 25 February 2020 07: 26 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      Serena hi from hopelessness - it was necessary to pick Finnish bunkers with something
      1. Svarog51 25 February 2020 07: 45 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Roma hi And what? "Stalin's sledgehammer" and could immediately provide for this event. She worked in Finnish more on bunkers than KV-2. Lost the tank in mobility, but won in power.
        I actually mentioned a tank with such a caliber, a serial one, although it did not make a significant contribution to domestic tank building.
        1. novel66 25 February 2020 07: 46 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          we had so much serial production that no one had ...
          1. Svarog51 25 February 2020 07: 50 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            I do not argue with that, it was. That's what interested me - 130 mm on heavy tanks was put in various experimental designs. Why did they come to 125 mm on modern tanks?
            1. novel66 25 February 2020 08: 07 New
              • 7
              • 0
              +7
              found the necessary balance
              1. Svarog51 25 February 2020 08: 11 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                So 130 in the late 50s was developed. Why didn’t they use it, but did it with a new 125 mm?
                1. novel66 25 February 2020 08: 12 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  probably too long a projectile for an automatic loader
                  1. Svarog51 25 February 2020 08: 17 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    And it’s kind of rifled, for TOURS you need a smoothbore. The modern one, too, with a reinforced projectile turned out longer.
                    1. novel66 25 February 2020 08: 18 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      Well and yes, rifled do not roll
                      1. Svarog51 25 February 2020 08: 22 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        We will take a look at what they will come to in the end. Both in our country and in the West, developments are underway. Should you get the result?
                    2. Vladimir_2U 25 February 2020 09: 08 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      To rifled guns there are quite TOURS
                      Almost simultaneously, two complexes were developed: the first - 9K116-1 Bastion, compatible with 100-mm rifled guns of the D-1 OT family of T-54/55 tanks; the second - 9K116-2 "Sheksna", designed for T-62 tanks with 115-mm U-5TS smoothbore guns. Both complexes use the same 9M117 missile from the Kastet complex
            2. EvilLion 25 February 2020 08: 59 New
              • 5
              • 1
              +4
              They “stepped up” on a standard 122 mm thread and got a 125 mm smoothbore (we count without grooves, that is, the exact diameter of 122 with grooves was 125, 73 mm; the stick on the BMP-3, on the contrary, is a 76 mm stitch down). More powerful systems were also in 122 mm, at least a gun on the T-10M with a muzzle energy of 13 MJ. But then the anti-tank systems were already taxiing and breaking through any monolith.
              1. Vladimir_2U 25 February 2020 09: 21 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                Quote: EvilLion
                They “stepped up” on a standard 122 mm thread and got a 125 mm smoothbore (we consider it without grooves, that is, the exact diameter of 122 with grooves was 125

                It was used for 115 mm guns, 125 mm is a completely original barrel.
                1. EvilLion 25 February 2020 09: 43 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  115 mm was also shortening the projectile.
    2. Romka47 25 February 2020 12: 21 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      In the west they said self-propelled guns, they also had a panther once average ... But in fact you are right KV2 is the only 152 serial tank accepted for service (the comrade after Shirokino said:152 mm was invented by Satan himself !!...)
      1. Alexey RA 25 February 2020 17: 48 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Romka47
        But in fact, you are right. KV2 is the only accepted serial tank representative 152

        Right now, Sheridan and the M60A2 were offended. smile
        1. Svarog51 26 February 2020 03: 44 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Did Sheridan really have the ability to shoot conventional shells? His "colleague" is more likely our IT-1 "Dragon" without a barrel at all.
          1. Per se. 26 February 2020 11: 38 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Svarog51
            Did Sheridan really have the ability to shoot conventional shells?
            Liquid fuel oil under solid oil !!! ... What do you understand in naval humor!
            1. Svarog51 26 February 2020 14: 09 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Thanks, namesake, I was already convinced that I was. good
          2. Grigory_45 26 February 2020 14: 13 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Svarog51
            Did Sheridan really have the ability to shoot conventional shells?

            yes, high explosive. Staffing them in the BC was 20 pcs
    3. Grigory_45 25 February 2020 21: 29 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Svarog51

      Well, why? Like it or not, it's a tank, not an SPG

      Well, let's say not a tank, but an assault gun. Self-propelled assault gun. They do not put howitzers on tanks, and they created the KV-2 for “picking up” Finnish bunkers.
      1. Svarog51 25 February 2020 21: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Gregory hi I thought that this postulate would fly. This was done for a specific purpose, and apparently worked .. Then there were the SU-152, and the ISU-152, but this is an ACS. They pretend to be an assault gun. Then in the 39th - Is-2 was a tank, albeit an assault one.
        1. Grigory_45 25 February 2020 21: 59 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Svarog51
          Then in the 39th - Is-2 was a tank, albeit an assault one.

          Perhaps the text should be KV-2?
          Based on the purpose of the armored vehicle - KV-2 is the self-propelled guns. Despite the fact that he had a tower (now almost everything, and even during WWII there were self-propelled guns with a tower)
          Although, here, apparently, it makes no sense to argue. So, the same Swedes called their Strv.103 tank, although, in fact, it was an anti-tank self-propelled gun.
          1. Svarog51 26 February 2020 02: 59 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes, of course, I'm sorry, I mixed up in my puffs. hi
            So you understand what I mean. KV-2 is difficult to call a tank, but nonetheless. No one else did this at that time.
      2. Potter 25 February 2020 21: 58 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In the terminology of that time - an artillery tank. To whom we belonged BT-7A (76-mm gun), KV-2, T-34-57, KV-9 (122-mm howitzer). The first three cars were mass-produced; the KV-9 did not go further than the prototype. On this, the development of this type of tank was over. The functions of artillery tanks were transferred to self-propelled guns. All subsequent combat vehicles with 152-mm guns are either assault self-propelled guns (ISU-152) or pure post-war self-propelled guns with howitzer weapons (Akatsiya, Msta, Coalition).
        1. Svarog51 26 February 2020 03: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Airborne? From the post-war, ASU-57, ASU-85. They are anti-tank, since the T-34-57 is mentioned. But this is so, the article does not touch upon this topic. 152 mm to a modern tank for what? Fight your own kind? This is not his task, although their meeting on the battlefield is not ruled out. The gun of the tank is about 5 km range, the self-propelled guns are much further. Does it make sense to increase the caliber of a tank gun? request
  5. Per se. 25 February 2020 07: 09 New
    • 9
    • 8
    +1
    Attempts to install a 152-mm cannon on the tank in either the Soviet (Russian) or Western tank building schools did not lead to positive results.
    Yes, in the West it didn’t work out with a 140 mm gun, there was only a declaration of intent to create, to which it turned out that the “trunks are burning”, that the serial production and operation of a 140 mm caliber gun is very expensive, and the development and creation itself is an extremely difficult task, which in the West could not be satisfactorily resolved. Everything was not easy with us either, the first 2A83 was torn apart by 86 shots, as a result, they began to change the thickness of the barrel walls to change the amplitude of metal vibrations. Thanks to the talent and dedication of our designers and engineers, the cannon and the tank itself (object 195) were created.

    The 2A83 gun had an initial armor-piercing projectile projectile speed of 1980 m / s and the ability to launch a guided missile through the barrel, the direct firing range was 5100 meters, and the armored penetration rate of the BPS reached 1024 millimeters of steel homogeneous armor. Ammunition was 36-40 rounds, types of ammunition: BPS, OFS, KUV. For secondary purposes, an automatic 30 mm 2A42 gun was used.

    The new tank had no analogues, essentially making a gap from the West for decades to come. The stupidity, betrayal and venality of those in power in Russia put an end to the object of a 195 and 152 mm tank gun. Mr. Popovkin announced the closure of the topic, the tank was called too expensive, difficult for conscripts, even "morally obsolete."

    Do I need a 152 mm gun on the tank? This question was answered at the beginning of work on the object 195 ("Improvement-88"). The potential of our 125 mm cannons and 120 mm western was almost exhausted, a 152 mm cannon made it possible to hit all existing and promising enemy tanks, as they say, from the first shot, to all, opening fire from a distance inaccessible to enemy tanks.

    Still, it is hardly correct to compare the object 195 and the Boxer - different technical solutions for placing 152 mm guns. T-95 (object 195) it was a revolutionary tank, the firstborn, of course, everything turned out to be more expensive and more complicated, but abandoning the topic is stupid and betrayal. Naturally, tank calibers cannot be increased indefinitely, probably, like on ships, the time will come, guided missiles will become the "main caliber", and the guns will have auxiliary functions, for example, as an automatic 57 mm.

    However, a super tank with 152 mm guns (or a heavy anti-tank self-propelled guns is heavy) is now needed. I hope that fools and traitors will be given a proper assessment "according to their deserts," and the experience gained in the 195 object will be brought to life for our army.
    1. chenia 25 February 2020 11: 11 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Per se.
      T-95 (object 195) it was a revolutionary tank,


      I completely agree. But this scheme had to be worked out with a 125 mm gun and a tank weight of up to 40-45 tons. It would be easier. (BO) capsule "glass" under the tower with an armored cap (on the slots with the latter, even if it is beaten off, then an armored cap on top of the glass), and rotating with it. With optical channels from observation and guidance devices located in the tower (electronic ones also duplicate).
      BC in the feed niche. Hatches next to the driver’s and preferably through the stern (need a move) of the tank.
      1. Per se. 25 February 2020 12: 54 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: chenia
        But this scheme had to be worked out with a 125 mm gun
        Eugene, an armored capsule, an uninhabited tower, were the consequence, not the reason for creating the tank. The reason that I had to make all revolutionary decisions was precisely the overall and heavy 152 mm cannon, for the sake of it everything was started, because of this the "garden was fenced". Without a 152 mm gun, an armored capsule, an uninhabited tower, is not a plus, but a minus design. In addition, with a 125 mm T-14 gun, the "budget version" of the T-95 (object 195), or "ub-lyu-doc" (as Colonel General Sergey Aleksandrovich Maev put it) does not have significant advantages over the modernized T-90, being much more complicated and expensive. If there will be detonation of the ammunition, with a similar layout, the armored capsule will not save the crew, but the "long arms" and powerful blow with a 152 mm cannon made it possible to destroy enemy tanks from a distance inaccessible to reciprocal tank fire. This is the whole trick. Well, I wanted in the era of Serdyukov show-offs with “furniture sets”, where everything in “one bottle”, almost a transformer (“economy”), shoved a heavy infantry fighting vehicle into the tank, the engine in the front, the engine in the back ... To finalize the almost finished T -95 regretted 700 million rubles, but only 64 billion were spent on research and development and development projects of the Alma Armata platform. To this, they also spent on raw tanks for parades that did not pass tests that were not accepted for service. If they immediately made a self-propelled gun T-15 self-propelled guns with a 125 mm gun, it would be better.
        Otherwise, if we talk about a 125 mm gun, the Black Eagle scheme would be much preferable. Already in a tight armored capsule, it’s not a crew, but an automatic loader with part of the ammunition, while the crew has enhanced protection and comfort, where the entire tank’s space is an “armored capsule”, with an individual evacuation hatch for each crew member.

        The "Black Eagle" is not a fake, the tank was created, but the "servants of the State Department" did not need this tank either, moreover, by 2015, in time for the anniversary parade, the Omsk tank factory went bankrupt.

        Thank you that UVZ is alive, having played enough with the “platforms”, you can still make a real platform based on the T-72 / T-90, and, God forbid, revive the “Abrams Kaput” or “Russian Tiger” with 152 mm guns, like a super tank like a gain tank.
        1. chenia 25 February 2020 15: 40 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: Per se.
          "Black Eagle" is not a fake


          I agree with that. In principle, I drew tracing paper from him. Just add the bearing armored hood, yet additional protection. "Glass" is conditional. Seat appliances are all connected to the hood and have mechanical and electromechanical communication with the tower elements. The capsule is created by the hull (OS and BO intensely armored) and is located in the most difficult place. The tower as in the "Black Eagle" two departments
          1. equipment with AZ and optical and electronic channels channels (devices all inside (BO) behind the cap).
          2. And the niche with the BK communicating with the cannon through a hole that is covered (after loading).

          Quote: Per se.
          Black Eagle scheme would be much preferable


          Also surprised. why did you choose a mastodon.

          The T-15 as a scarecrow can work, you can work out the scheme, but as a serial one it certainly is not needed.
          It’s stupid to do TBMP on its basis (the tendency is to reduce the number of troops with an increase in the number of infantry fighting vehicles in the unit with the same number of L / C).

          Quote: Per se.
          there is a dimensional and heavy 152 mm gun


          Naturally, to create under 152 mm, but so far it’s not worth setting (do not spin up the arms race)
          1. Per se. 26 February 2020 08: 46 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: chenia
            It’s stupid to do TBMP on its basis (the tendency is to reduce the number of troops with an increase in the number of infantry fighting vehicles in the unit with the same number of L / C).
            The original BMP concept is mobility and versatility, heavy BMP, no matter how you say it, no longer floats, this is the time. Secondly, in specialization it will be inferior in transport function to heavy armored personnel carrier, and in fire BMPT. If we talk about heavy infantry fighting vehicles, it will only make sense in tandem understanding where there should be a bunch of heavy armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.

            All this can be on a single tank base, platform, for example, T-72 / T-90, where BMPT has specialized fire support (such as the Terminator), and transport on the BMO-T base (you can even use it from stocks for alterations from old tanks). Here, there will be a decrease in the number of troops, and in this case it must be said that the troops should be, like an assault group, precisely for use in conjunction with tanks and BMPTs. A smaller number of paratroopers per heavy armored personnel carrier will optimize the dimensions of the machine without compromising the comfort of the crew and the landing. Six man paratroopers, presumably, optimally. This will also make it possible to dismount faster, and in the case of a heavy armored personnel carrier with a landing inside, it minimizes losses. I emphasize here we are only talking about assault groups directly working with tanks. In principle, during the Second World War, machine gunners on tank armor were a prototype of such an interaction. Naturally, this does not cancel the traditional armored personnel carriers for infantry and infantry fighting vehicles.

            As for the T-15, for me this is stupid, even the squat and maneuverable BMP-1/2, may be happier for the infantry than this heavy and huge Mouse.


            All the talk about the powerful defense of the landing, no more than speculation, according to anyone, and the heaviest BMP is not a bomb shelter, but use this miracle with the infantry next to the tanks, with any thickness of armor, this will be a "mass grave". By the way, the topic of active defense here also raises questions if, at the time of dismounting and deploying its landing, KAZ will work. So it turns out that next to the tanks (or even ahead of them) BMPT is needed, and for infantry heavy armored personnel carriers in the second line.

            Classic, universal BMP, this is our BMP-3 (for the airborne BMD-4M), these are the best cars in its class. Of course, this is just my personal opinion.
            1. chenia 26 February 2020 09: 56 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Per se.
              about heavy infantry fighting vehicles, it will only make sense in tandem understanding where there should be a bunch of heavy armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.


              In this regard, I fully agree with you (I have always pointed out such use of military vehicles before). But some nuances. TBMP along with BMPT go almost immediately behind the battle line of tanks. And this is almost immediately behind the fire curtain of artillery (RBU 200 m, or less).
              The TBMP unit in the regiment is intended for mastering the first position of layered defense at the breakout site. Next will go the other parts on the BMP-3. That is, there is a certain specialization for TBMP (we had regiments for infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers in the MSD). And TBMP needs to have several fire channels (with a decrease in the landing it is possible). Well, like a tower pulled to the stern. mechvod in the center, on the right. to the left of the turret with a machine gun and AH (but, but with a fairly wide sector of fire). Together with BMPT, this will allow a breakthrough to be carried out without dismounting.
              1. Per se. 26 February 2020 10: 59 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: chenia
                Together with BMPT, this will allow a breakthrough to be carried out without dismounting.
                Without dismounting, if the situation allows, heavy tanks with infantry can also pass behind tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. But, the infantry for the war will have to get out of the armored personnel carrier (or BMP) anyway, I repeat, this is not a bomb shelter. Also, speaking about interaction with tanks, we must remember that there are different types of combat, and the most difficult, for any armored vehicles, or for infantry, is a battle in the city. Here, without rushing, it’s generally difficult to imagine anything. In any case, armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles should not crawl with infantry in the womb where there is a high risk of a car burn out along with all the troops inside.
                1. chenia 26 February 2020 11: 13 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Per se.
                  Without dismounting, if the situation allows,


                  Definitely and indisputably! I meant it. But some areas can be skipped much faster. By the way TBMP (without landing) can act as a BMPT. Although the BMPT unit should be organizationally included in the TB (fourth company) and for SMEs as TBMP, BMP and BTR.)
  6. Paul Siebert 25 February 2020 07: 56 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    We are the only country in the world that has already put 152-mm guns on production tanks.
    The KV-2 tank was created to break through powerful defensive lines. Destruction of bunkers and bunkers.
    In total, the Leningrad Kirov Plant built 204 KV-2 tanks.
    Unfortunately, almost all of them were lost in the summer of 1941.
    Then in the Soviet Union self-propelled guns with a 152-mm gun were produced.
    Su-152 and ISU-152. The famous "Hypericum".
    A shell from such an installation would overturn enemy armored personnel carriers. Tore off the tanks of the tower.
    Why not return to that caliber? So far, at least as an experiment?
    After all, if the hopes come true - our country will confirm the title of a tank-building power that the whole world is oriented to. fellow
    1. EvilLion 25 February 2020 09: 01 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Is Msta-S not enough for you?
      1. Paul Siebert 25 February 2020 09: 12 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Phew, Evil Lyova, I’m not getting used to your appeal to you.
        This article is about tanks.
        I can’t imagine the Mstu-S attacking in advanced order ... laughing
        1. EvilLion 25 February 2020 09: 42 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          And why in the forefront, when you can throw from above, the more accuracy is incomparable with grandfather?
          1. Paul Siebert 25 February 2020 09: 48 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Why even go on the attack if you can shoot from behind the front line?
            Really - why? laughing
            1. EvilLion 25 February 2020 10: 05 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              When possible, they do so.
              1. Paul Siebert 25 February 2020 10: 17 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                It’s harmful to go on the attack — they can kill! wink
              2. Svarog51 26 February 2020 03: 58 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Now they don’t do it, and if they do, it ends very sadly for self-propelled guns. Here is an example.
    2. Sancho_SP 25 February 2020 09: 05 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Mainly because the KV-2 and SU-152 are heavy assault self-propelled guns (according to the project), which were built under the narrow task of breaking enemy bunkers with direct fire in the conditions of return fire from anti-tank artillery. They became tank destroyers, for lack of other options.

      Today it is not relevant, for:

      1. Bunkers are not widespread. Launchers of heavy ATGMs simply disperse throughout the territory, rather than hiding in concrete.

      2. From heavy ATGM no armor will help. A larger missile can be made much simpler and faster than a tank with thicker armor. Active defenses in the series so far are not enough.

      3. The artillery began to work much more efficiently, and for what in the 41st it was necessary to go on direct fire, today it’s quietly done from behind a hill.
      1. Lopatov 25 February 2020 10: 23 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Quote: Sancho_SP
        3. The artillery began to work much more efficiently, and for what in the 41st it was necessary to go on direct fire, today it’s quietly done from behind a hill.

        Not. Nothing really changed.
        As then, and so far direct fire is both much faster and much more accurate
        1. God save the king 25 February 2020 11: 12 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Nothing really changed.
          With the advent of affordable guided weapons, much has changed. The tank still has utilitarian functions to support the infantry (with which 100-105 mm guns do a good job), but for protected purposes it is much easier to use adjustable ammunition.
          1. Lopatov 25 February 2020 11: 17 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: God save the King
            With the advent of affordable guided weapons, much has changed.

            It's nothing.
            After all, guided weapons appeared primarily among those who shot direct fire

            Therefore, as it was, it remains. Faster, more precisely, cheaper
      2. Alexey RA 25 February 2020 18: 03 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Sancho_SP
        Mainly because the KV-2 and SU-152 are heavy assault self-propelled guns (according to the project), which were built under the narrow task of breaking enemy bunkers with direct fire in the conditions of return fire from anti-tank artillery.

        Ahem ... actually, the serial KV-2 was an artillery tank. Its main objective was the fire support of linear tanks on the battlefield by "sprinkling with chalk" the same positions of anti-tank artillery - when operating in the second line. Also, his task was to work with the PDO on accumulations of infantry and artillery positions of the enemy. Thus, the GABTU tried to compensate for the eternal problem of artillery lagging behind the mechanized units on the march.
        True, whoever prepared the data for firing the KV-2 with a PDO is a great mystery. For heavy tank battalions did not possess such specialists and equipment, and artillery specialists would drag along with towed guns. Yes, and with the UVN of the tank howitzer it was all sad.
    3. Po-tzan 25 February 2020 11: 23 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Paul Siebert
      We are the only country in the world that has already put 152-mm guns on production tanks.

      1. sharp-lad 25 February 2020 23: 43 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Is this not a launcher for ATGMs? hi
        1. Po-tzan 26 February 2020 10: 32 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: sharp-lad
          Is this not a launcher for ATGMs? hi

          Including.
        2. Ded_Mazay 1 March 2020 11: 24 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This is the shotgun on the tracks ...
    4. Romka47 25 February 2020 12: 23 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      For a long time there is an idea that we need a heavily armored assault self-propelled gun 152mm +
      1. Sancho_SP 25 February 2020 13: 02 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Is heavy - is it a mass with a tank, or is it harder? If the mass of the tank - the weight is only in the gun.

        From here, the question will be repeated: for what specific cases for a direct-fire shot, a 152-mm caliber projectile is preferable to two 125-mm shells with an interval of 6 seconds?
        1. Romka47 25 February 2020 13: 37 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, the logical answer will be: when there is no 6 seconds, when you need one shot "on the line." In the city when you need to leave and put down the building with the enemy, albeit slow and with a small BC, suppose that it will not break through the open spaces, and a purely urban sau (tank) that does not need to be 2 km accurate, does not need a cool radar, automatic tracking the target, but which is guaranteed to withstand the N-th number of RPGs, IEDs, while a powerful 152 shell must knock out fortified firing points. If the idea is summarized in brief.
          1. Sancho_SP 25 February 2020 15: 43 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Fundamentally stronger than a tank, such self-propelled guns will not be with equal weight. So, meddling in the city is not recommended to her in the same way.

            And at home you can completely blow up houses, again, from a distance.
            1. Romka47 25 February 2020 15: 54 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              It will not be equal, but we are not limited by mass, and provided that it is "urban" and the speed (and therefore specific power) is not critical for it, we can make a monster super-heavy, but for purely narrow city tasks, but if it’s necessary to climb forward (and in city battles, if you don’t equal everything from far away) anyway then “someone on the armor” will climb forward ”and“ someone with a border “will survive and will meet. So let it be” that's what something like that "
              1. Svarog51 26 February 2020 04: 31 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                So let it be "that's something like that"

                Will it fit? What is it? Only I'm not sure that I will get to the position. request
                1. Romka47 26 February 2020 09: 54 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Well, like that) good
    5. 5-9
      5-9 25 February 2020 14: 49 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      You confuse the gun and the howitzer ... in our tanks / self-propelled guns there were howitzers.
      1. Romka47 25 February 2020 15: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Of course you’re right, but it’s possible to argue a little bit, with the tankers the GUN, in general, it’s gun like artillerymen (and there’s a howitzer or martyr), and a gun. That is, the KV2 tank’s gun was the ML-20 howitzer. No matter how crooked these may sound, so to speak.
        1. 5-9
          5-9 26 February 2020 07: 10 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          This is more to the fact that the "gun" is 152 mm 2 times larger than the "howitzer" 152 mm. The Germans pushed 128 mm.
        2. Bad_gr 26 February 2020 18: 33 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Romka47
          That is, the KV2 tank’s gun was the ML-20 howitzer. No matter how crooked these may sound, so to speak.

          And the “king gun” is not a gun, but a mortar.
          Among modern ones, howitzer guns are now spreading. That is, the barrel length, in calibers, corresponds to a cannon, but it can also shoot by a canopy, like a howitzer.
          (Our MSTA-s, Coalition-sv, etc.)
          1. Romka47 27 February 2020 09: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            You didn’t understand me from the word at all: AT ARTILLERISTS WEAPONS (and it is already classified this way or that, martyr, or howitzer this depends primarily on barrel length in calibers), they don’t say "calculation to the gun, or calculation to the howitzer, they say" TO WEAPONS ", by TANK / PUSHKA-tankers. This is not a classification of weapons by criteria, this is the name according to the area of ​​application, it’s accepted that ships don’t sail but go, tankers don’t have a gun but a cannon. That's what I’ve talked about.
            And not only the howitzer shoots a canopy, but also the martyr, and the sea guns of the battleship too (no one will say that there is a howitzer). In general, if we take the classic concept, howitzers or martyrs, and cannons, then neither an MSTA with an active rocket or a tank with anti-tank missiles fall under these definitions, the tank has a launcher in fact, it can launch missiles through the barrel. And yet there is a GUN)
            1. Bad_gr 27 February 2020 09: 31 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Romka47
              You did not understand me from the word at all ...

              Why didn’t I understand: I supported the topic of “what and what to call”, only in a slightly different light.
              1. Romka47 27 February 2020 09: 35 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Then sorry hi I don’t understand you)
    6. Grigory_45 25 February 2020 21: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Paul Siebert
      We are the only country in the world that has already put 152-mm guns on production tanks.
      Tank KV-2

      KV-2 - rather self-propelled guns.
      As for the only ones, they are not right. Somewhere, American Sheridan is looking at you with surprised eyes. Yes, with a 155 mm cannon launcher.
  7. Maks1995 25 February 2020 08: 57 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    In fact, in recent conflicts, tanks fight tanks very rarely. And especially the latest series.
    Pur, ATGM, ground air, landmines, and other joys ...

    That is, protection, protection, protection ...
  8. Sancho_SP 25 February 2020 08: 59 New
    • 8
    • 2
    +6
    Porridge, of course. A larger caliber gun is good for everyone, except that it is heavier and has less shells. Consequently:

    1. While maintaining the same mass of the tank and the armor, the size of the transported ammunition is reduced. In the case of the transition from 125 to 152, it decreases critically.

    2. When you save (numerically) the size of the ammunition and the mass of the tank - the weight of the armor is reduced. That is, it turns out a Sau type Msta, unable to perform tank tasks.

    3. While maintaining the level of reservation and the number of ammunition, the mass of the tank crawls out for the restrictions caused by the railway, bridges, etc., which is generally unacceptable.

    At the same time, the advantages of a 152 mm gun are not obvious:

    1. A high-explosive fragmentation shell is really more powerful. But those goals for which this power is needed are artillery tasks.

    2. The 152 mm caliber rocket is indeed a monster. But such missiles do not have to be launched through the barrel. Can be placed outside or in general on an infantry fighting vehicle / armored personnel carrier / tiger, etc.

    3. The range of destruction of the enemy BPS tank is increasing. It’s the tank, and it’s in the forehead. The remaining armored targets and tanks on board and stern are hit by any projectile (even fragmentation) from a 125-mm gun from any distance (the main thing is to get there). And to defeat an enemy tank in the forehead at a distance, it is clearly more profitable to put more guided missiles in the T-90 than to fence a garden with a new cannon.

    Thus, a tank with a 152 mm gun is like a meter long member. Very cool, but useless.
    1. Lopatov 25 February 2020 10: 31 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      While maintaining the same mass of the tank and armor, the size of the carried ammunition is reduced. In the case of the transition from 125 to 152, it decreases critically.

      The issue of replenishment of ammunition during the battle. It was decided earlier, it is now possible to solve. Moreover, quick-loading systems for 155 mm ammunition already existed.
      .

      Just two minutes

      Quote: Sancho_SP
      And to defeat an enemy tank in the forehead at a distance, it is clearly more profitable to put more guided missiles in the T-90 than to fence a garden with a new cannon.

      Debatable. Given the development of APS abroad. That is, KOEP and KAZ
    2. Couchexpert 25 February 2020 18: 22 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      Thus, a tank with a 152 mm gun is like a meter long member. Very cool, but useless.

      This is right "in the frame" you need to put. But to convey this truth to all does not seem real. Maybe it's because of compensation ... well, you understand ...

      Indeed, if one wonders how the possibilities of armored penetration of the BOPS are connected (and we shoot at tanks with them) with the diameter of the barrel channel along which it moves when fired? Is there any difference for him to fly 4-5 meters of steel pipe with an inner diameter of 125 or 152,4? Naturally, as part of the corresponding caliber of the projectile, in which the belts of the detachable pallet are in contact with the channel, the halves of which are discarded after the projectile leaves the barrel. Something tells me that not really.

      Quote: Article
      In addition, an increase in the initial velocity of a projectile with a propellant powder charge has a physical limitation of up to 2200-2400 m / s, and a further increase charge mass by increasing caliber does not give a gain in efficiency, in connection with this, the use of new physical principles of projectile throwing is required.


      Why growth charge mass must be accompanied caliber increase? And to increase the dimensions of the liner without touching the diameter of the bore? The pressure inside will certainly increase, the walls will need to be strengthened (including due to the thickness), but nevertheless it is better than pulling the "guns from the cruiser" into the tanks.
      Breakthrough BOPS roughly grows from:
      1. Masses (and it is desirable to focus it on a small cross section of the crowbar: in other words you can’t do it fatter, only longer and / or from denser material, here all the reserves for modernization are almost exhausted, and the development paths at least do not raise questions).
      2. Speed ​​(which depends on the dimensions and contents of the sleeve, whether it is separate or part of the unit: can’t you increase the charge energy while maintaining the dimensions of the sleeve? Well, you have to develop a new enlarged sleeve, the experience in artillery is also not unique).

      One way or another, the desire to break through all the major obstacles with BOPs will in any case require the development of a new projectile-gun system. Unification with other guns will disappear.
      That's just why it should be precisely the "sacred", selected back in the 80s 152 mm? But the current level of development of materials and other things will not allow us to do, say ... 138th mm?
      And is it possible here when designing it is generally worth “going from the other end” and calculating, for example, the maximum caliber for the existing T-72 (90) and stop at it until better times (if the 125 mm is no longer such, of course)? And then something interesting happens with our new weapons projects: it seems that they are, but it seems that they don’t ... It turns out there is a tank, there is no gun ... or there is a gun, there is no tank ... Therefore, looking back is always useful and "Plan B "to have too.
      1. Bad_gr 26 February 2020 18: 48 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: CouchExpert
        And is it possible here when designing it is generally worth “going from the other end” and calculating, for example, the maximum caliber for the existing T-72 (90) and stop at it until better times (if the 125 mm is no longer such, of course)?

        winked On the T-80 cannon 152 mm caliber already set ("Object-292"):
    3. Saxahorse 25 February 2020 23: 16 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      While maintaining the same mass of the tank and armor, the size of the carried ammunition is reduced. In the case of the transition from 125 to 152, it decreases critically.

      Why so categorically? Have you tried to check with numbers? From the fact that you have already developed these conclusions do not follow.
      1. Bad_gr 26 February 2020 18: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Saxahorse
        From the fact that you have already developed these conclusions do not follow.

        That's for sure. At the Chelyabinsk "Object-785" with a 130mm gun caliber (rifled), ammunition load of 50 rounds of them 30 in the conveyor.
  9. Ros 56 25 February 2020 09: 02 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The question is of course interesting, but at that level of development of modern weapons and the pace of its further development, it seems to me irrelevant. Increasing the caliber automatically leads to an increase in weight and size. The result is an armored fortress on tracks that not every bridge can withstand and the target is pretty decent. And helicopters have already been done to defeat them, and I think drones are on their way.
    It is difficult to foresee something, of course, but a modern nuclear-free war will be fast with the maximum use of aviation, including unmanned and missiles for various purposes, and large tanks somehow do not fit into this picture, although who knows how it really will be.
  10. Nikolaevich I 25 February 2020 10: 22 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    1. Today, Western tanks have a cannon caliber of mainly 120 mm, and Soviet (Russian) - 125 mm. In the West, tank guns of caliber 140 mm are being developed, and in the Soviet Union (Russia) several versions of a tank gun of caliber 152 mm were created, but none of the projects were implementedWell, as far as the “West” is concerned, Germany has been refining it recently with a 130 mm cannon ... In the USSR, in my opinion, at least 2 prototype tanks with 130 mm cannons were created ... during the development of the “Object” 195 ", along with a 152-mm gun, a 135-mm tank gun was included in the development plan ...!
    2. The use of hypersonic anti-aircraft missiles less susceptible to dynamic and active defense compared to cumulative ammunition to defeat armored targets can be more effective, and not the caliber, but the initial velocity of the projectile is decisive for them.

    In addition, an increase in the initial velocity of a projectile with a propellant powder charge has a physical limitation of up to 2200-2400 m / s, and a further increase in the charge mass due to an increase in caliber does not give an increase in efficiency; therefore, the use of new physical principles of projectile throwing is required.
    To solve the problems of "this kind" it is not necessary to rely on the "new physical principles"! You can try to use the old ...! a) In the "first lines of the letter" we can mention experiments with hypersonic active reactive BOPS ... Currently, the development of such ammunition has stalled somewhat, because there were "some", not yet resolved problems ... but the problems are solved! The topic is not completely abandoned! b) One should also refer to the improvement of “nuclear impact” shells ... (SFZ, EFP ...) Currently, they are trying to make SFZ shells that form “impact nuclei” in the form of feathered penetrators (!). .. Thus, the "nuclear strike" shells of the "new generation" will be deprived of some of the shortcomings of the "old generation" shells and will acquire the properties of increased "power" ... EFP shells with a "shock core" will also be "relevant", old type "; but guided, attacking an armored target from above or aboard! There may finally be" self-aiming "shells s like "stuff" c "EFP" ...
    3. Electrothermochemical (ETH) guns are those guns that replace the "traditional" guns (or "diversify" the arsenal of tank guns ...) before solving problems with electromagnetic guns ... i.e. these are intermediate guns ... But I would carefully use the expression "new physical principles" in relation to ETX guns!
    4.And maybe ..... well, their nafik .... these tank guns ?! There were attempts to replace the "traditional" tank guns with "barrel" launchers (launchers)! Well, it didn’t grow together then! And at the "new temporary (and technological) turn ... why not?! (There are now, however, experienced, hypersonic anti-aircraft missiles!)
    1. Lopatov 25 February 2020 10: 41 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      hypersonic active reactive BOPS ...

      Horror full in terms of problems during development.

      Or super expensive with precision manufacturing precision. Although here I’m not sure of the ability to manufacture them so high quality as to ensure acceptable firing accuracy.

      Or try to control the projectile. At least in the acceleration section

      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      4.And maybe ..... well, their nafik .... these tank guns ?! There were attempts to replace the "traditional" tank guns with "barrel" launchers (launchers)! Well, it didn’t grow together then! And at the "new temporary (and technological) turn ... why not?! (There are now, however, experienced, hypersonic anti-aircraft missiles!)

      The problem is that the main objective of the tank is not another tank. And the enemy infantry and its TCP, including in field fortifications
      And here we need an HE shell. Moreover, flying as slowly as possible.
      1. Nikolaevich I 25 February 2020 12: 43 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Spade
        The problem is that the main objective of the tank is not another tank.
        And here we need an HE shell. Moreover, flying as slowly as possible.

        Duc, any whim for other people's money! fellow Yes, did I really “forbid” the inclusion of shells in the “tank PU” HE shell? In no case ! no Let me remind you of the experimental 125 mm tank launcher ... Here's what you can read about it ...:In 1962-64 in SKB-75 (Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant), under the direction of P.P. Isakov, a missile tank rev.775 was created. OKB-9 created for him a barrel rifled (32 rifled) D-126 launcher of 125 mm caliber, firing the Typhoon TOURS and the Bur unguided active-reactive high-explosive fragmentation shells. The maximum firing range "Burami" - 9 km. The launcher had an automatic loader and was remotely controlled by the operator commander. As I already mentioned: at that “temporary” (technological) “turn”, they failed to bring the development to mind ... like, instead of waiting for the “delivery” on time, they tried to “give birth” prematurely! Ammunition for such an installation can be: a) subsonic, supersonic ... even "hypersonic" ... b) controlled, adjusted, uncontrolled, active-reactive (in the version: "gun-launcher") ...
        Quote: Spade
        hypersonic active reactive BOPS ...

        Horror full in terms of problems during development.

        “And no one says that it will be easy ...”! There are problems ... but “solutions” are outlined! Everything flows, everything changes ! Somewhere, something slower ... somewhere faster ... In Russia, for example, they tried to remain "the last stronghold of missile weapons of the 2nd generation" because of all their strength ... but even here this stronghold is already collapsing! Once upon a time, gyroscopes were "weighed" in kilograms ... now, in grams. More recently, miniature ANNs were installed only on the most expensive children's helicopter models ... nowadays, even budget-friendly children's toys are equipped with such ANNs! "Come on, it's cheaper!"
      2. Bad_gr 26 February 2020 19: 01 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Spade
        Horror full in terms of problems during development.
        Or super expensive with precision manufacturing accuracy ........

        KAZ "Afganit" stated that it would shoot down a projectile (up to the sub-caliber) with a "strike nucleus".
        How can this be calculated at all?
        1. Lopatov 26 February 2020 19: 46 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Bad_gr
          How can this be calculated at all?

          The Israelites counted.
          In fact, there is nothing particularly complicated for modern computers.
          1. Bad_gr 26 February 2020 20: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            The Israelites counted.

            The Israelites have a mechanical guidance of the mortar from which a shot is fired at the flying ammunition. I think that in terms of speed this device does not shine.
            In our country (Afganit), a shot with a “strike nucleus” is fired from an already flying object (I know what to call it) that the mortar shot, And at the same time, you need to get into a flying projectile.
  11. Nick Russ 25 February 2020 11: 22 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    ,, In this case, the firepower of BPS and OFS is determined by the kinetic energy of the projectile ,,


    It is not clear what is the relationship between OFS and kinetic energy. Undermining can be done at all in the immediate vicinity of the target, and not upon contact. Then the radius of the blast wave and the expansion of the striking elements, and, accordingly, the efficiency will be greater.



    ,, High-explosive fragmentation shell (OFS) - a basic munition that combines high-explosive and fragmentation action and is intended to destroy a large number of types of targets: defeat enemy personnel in an open area or in fortifications, destroy lightly armored vehicles, destroy buildings, fortifications and fortifications making passages in minefields, etc.

    When hit in armor, it does not transmit kinetic force, but explodes, inflicting surface damage (scattering fragments with great speed, additionally damaging armored vehicles, shells, injures or kills the crew and the infantry accompanying vehicles), incapacitating the tracks (tracks), damaging the triplex - observation devices, produces damage to the armor, deflections and microcracks ,,
  12. iouris 25 February 2020 11: 49 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The photograph demonstrates the (egregious) level of culture of production (or maintenance).
    1. Nastia makarova 25 February 2020 12: 18 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      What do you dislike? dirty?)))
  13. Andrey.AN 25 February 2020 12: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In my opinion, it’s the same as instead of giving AKM to the soldier Thunder, the ammunition and range of the direct shot will decrease, the latter is not critical in the presence of modern SLAs. The power of the OFS and guided missiles, presumably, will increase. You can try it, but first make an SD of 152 mm, the rest is, including adjustable ones, except for missiles.
    1. Saxahorse 25 February 2020 23: 18 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: Andrey.AN
      You can try it, but first make an SD of 152 mm, the rest is, including adjustable ones, except for missiles.

      ATGM Cornet - the caliber of the rocket for some reason is 152 mm. laughing
  14. garri-lin 25 February 2020 12: 36 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The main criterion for milking the choice of weapons is targets on the battlefield. Milking 99 percent of the targets with 125 mm guns per eye is enough. Why then fence in the garden with an increase in caliber. The tank does not need a 152 mm gun. Just do not need it. You can increase tank capabilities with other methods. Without going beyond the reasonable weight of the tank itself. Smart rockets. 3 or 4 generation ATGM. That's what you need to focus on.
    1. Sling cutter 25 February 2020 12: 41 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: garri-lin
      That's what you need contemplate.

      Quote: garri-lin
      Why then fence in the garden with an increase in caliber. The tank does not need a 152 mm gun. Just do not need it. You can increase tank capabilities with other methods. Without going beyond the reasonable weight of the tank itself. Smart rockets. 3 or 4 generation ATGM. That's what you need to focus on.

      If you listen to such "tankers", Duc and tanks are not needed wassat
      1. garri-lin 25 February 2020 12: 46 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Tanks are needed and it is tanks and not monsters. Which will always be late in battle. And they can be late for the battle. If you can put 90mm with 152 rounds of ammunition into the t 30 MS case and not change one other parameter of the tank, then the flag is to you and thanks from the pekhtura. But alas, this is impossible. Here they wrote above either weight or protection or BC suffer critical. Impossible and therefore unnecessary.
        1. Sling cutter 25 February 2020 12: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: garri-lin
          Tanks are needed and it is tanks and not monsters. Which will always be late in battle. And they can be late for the battle. If you can put 90mm with 152 rounds of ammunition into the t 30 MS case and not change one other parameter of the tank, then the flag is to you and thanks from the pekhtura. But alas, this is impossible. Here they wrote above either weight or protection or BC suffer critical. Impossible and therefore unnecessary

          I think that the conversation about the 152 mm cannon goes in the context of Almaty with its uninhabited tower and certainly not about the 90th car. hi
          1. garri-lin 25 February 2020 13: 08 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            So on Armata, if you put it, the weight will increase. Weight, recoil and decrease in BC. Cons of increased caliber. I am almost sure that the theoretical, and possibly practical, work on installing 152 mm on the T 14 was carried out. How hurt for the future. PDA review of possible modernization potential. But the troops do not need them. According to the most important criterion. There are no targets on the battlefield.
            1. Sling cutter 25 February 2020 13: 22 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: garri-lin
              I am almost sure that the theoretical, and possibly practical, work on installing 152 mm on the T 14 was carried out. How hurt for the future. PDA review of possible modernization potential. But the troops do not need them. According to the most important criterion. There are no targets on the battlefield.

              And why do not you consider maintaining a database tank connection from closed positions, remote from the LF, if at all. A tank is more mobile than an artillery, and having such a mallet can to some extent replace it. If you take Armata, then it was originally conceived as a unified means. And here the logical question arises, what is the forward ammunition or gun? From here follows the task of creating completely new ammunition, for which plants, R&D and so on are needed. and so on. So all this talk about new 152 mm guns., Just talk and nothing more. hi
              1. garri-lin 25 February 2020 14: 50 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                152 mm from closed positions. Something familiar. Maybe Msta. And the Coalition falls under this description. But the tank from the closed position with its air-blasting line, this is all right nonsense. This is already done from the Uzh Hedgehog by feeding the Roses.
                1. Sling cutter 25 February 2020 15: 43 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  This is already done from the Uzh Hedgehog by feeding the Roses.

                  Well, here I would rather agree than vice versa)
                2. Lopatov 25 February 2020 18: 02 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  But the tank from the closed position with its air-blasting line, this is all right nonsense.

                  It is quite a normal option.
                  And tankers are simply obliged to be able and able to shoot at the calculated installations.
                  This will greatly increase the capabilities of tank units.
                  1. garri-lin 25 February 2020 18: 35 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    But you must admit that dedicating this type of fire for tanks is basically absurd. The tank for such a little adapted. But you must be able to.
                    1. Lopatov 25 February 2020 19: 14 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      But you must admit that dedicating this type of fire for tanks is basically absurd.

                      On the contrary.
                      This is an opportunity to hit targets from half-closed positions. And do not engage in delirium like "serial experience" in the form of "tank carousels"
                      This is an opportunity to shoot at a target that is not visible. Aerosol curtain, fog, dust and the like
                      This is an opportunity to quickly give accurate target designation.
                      And so on.


                      Quote: garri-lin
                      The tank for such a little adapted.

                      There is nothing particularly complicated. All the same, this will have to be done among the measures to increase the controllability of units in battle.
                      1. garri-lin 25 February 2020 19: 26 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Because of the nearest mound, yes. But the person to whom I answered spoke about shooting from a position remote from the LF. There is artillery for this. And it is undesirable to overload the tankers with an excessive load. They have a lot to do.
                      2. Lopatov 25 February 2020 19: 37 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Because of the nearest mound, yes. But the person to whom I answered spoke about shooting from a position remote from the LF

                        But there is not much difference.
                        A command will come to ASUNO, the elevation angle is so-and-so, the so-and-so turn. High explosive. Shot. And that’s it.
                        But it’s where the shells of one tank or shells of one battalion fly away to decide to fathers-commanders.
                      3. garri-lin 25 February 2020 19: 41 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Well, on tanks with topographic location it is now to realize the problem of purely software writing. For headquarters. But is it worth shooting trunks?
                      4. Lopatov 25 February 2020 19: 45 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        But is it worth shooting trunks?

                        Trunks are shot primarily by "crowbars"
                        According to MT-12, as far as I remember, the OB resource is 10 times greater than the resource for sub-caliber
                      5. garri-lin 25 February 2020 19: 53 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I haven’t seen the exact number for modern tank swallows. And rumored to be 1 to 3.
                      6. Lopatov 25 February 2020 19: 53 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        I haven’t seen the exact number for modern tank swallows. And rumored to be 1 to 3.

                        Absolutely not.
                      7. garri-lin 25 February 2020 20: 06 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        More? For tanks of the USSR, the main ammunition was considered to be OF. Correspondingly, the resource was indicated in HE shells by shells and the number there was small. You know very well how many shells are needed per barrel to defeat a typical firing point at the intersection. BC is not enough. Why such an expense if there is artillery?
                      8. Lopatov 25 February 2020 20: 10 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        You know very well how many shells are needed per barrel to defeat a typical firing point at the intersection.

                        And why the "firing point" and not the "platoon strong point"?
                        At a firing point, you can shoot direct fire.
                        Or thoughtfully, from a half-closed position, with control. The fact that now in Syria "with a bang" would go. But they just don’t know how. Not trained.
                      9. garri-lin 25 February 2020 20: 40 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        So on the platoon reference you can shoot straight. ATGM from any target can fly. For these purposes there is artillery. And while she is working, the tank comes close and finishes off everything else that moves and shoots at the infantry walking next to the tanks. This is the essence of the tank.
                      10. Lopatov 25 February 2020 20: 42 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        So on the platoon reference you can shoot straight.

                        Generally necessary, but not possible
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        For these purposes there is artillery.

                        But it may be missed. Especially if the enemy artillery is not suppressed.
                      11. garri-lin 25 February 2020 20: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        And tanks working from closed positions are substituted under counter-battery fire. Mobility and vitality are higher of course. But the risk is comparable.
                      12. Lopatov 25 February 2020 20: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And tanks working from closed positions are substituted under counter-battery fire

                        Well, yes.
                        They fired, left, but brought confusion.
                        Also, by the way, a good option. In order not to pull out nomadic guns from the already small artillery
                      13. garri-lin 25 February 2020 21: 15 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        In war everything is always lacking. And artillery. And tanks. And even good positions. Each thing is good in its place. Or do you think that with a lack of artillery there will be an excess of tanks. Plus, as I understand it, when mounted from tank guns, range accuracy will be worse. There are many disadvantages to this application.
                      14. Lopatov 25 February 2020 21: 18 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Or do you think that with a lack of artillery there will be an excess of tanks.

                        Artillery guns are dragged to the front for direct fire during artillery preparation of the attack. Why can't one tank platoon stop and fire a salvo, and then continue moving? And thereby help artillery to identify shooting guns from that side?
                      15. garri-lin 25 February 2020 21: 34 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Well, you can give a volley for rustling. The result from the hit will be less than the result from the fact of the shot. But the actual goal of crushing with the hope of a result suppressed / destroyed the wrong effect. There will be much less use. In fact, in the first case it is like a subspecies of a psychological attack, and in the second, non-core use of expensive equipment with a deliberately low result.
  • chenia 25 February 2020 18: 39 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    And tankers are simply required to be able to


    So they always had it (well, at least in our time).

    Quote: Spade
    and be able to shoot at calculated numbers.


    Well, do not scoff at them. From SOB and above all our guys. And a week you explain how to use sighting when shooting with a PDO.

    Tanker with PUO. like a scuba gunner bully
    1. Lopatov 25 February 2020 19: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: chenia
      So they always had it (well, at least in our time).

      Not really. Without a “crutch” in the form of a quadrant will not work.

      Quote: chenia
      Tanker with PUO. like a scuba gunner

      A tankman is not a tankman, but motorized rifles must be able to shoot according to the numbers calculated. Because of the issue, you can get to the post of commander of the GDV.

      But scuba gunners are needed. Rather, isolating gas masks, how to escape from water from self-propelled guns when needed?
      1. chenia 25 February 2020 19: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Spade
        But scuba gunners need


        Well, you caught me.

        Okay, like an Eskimo with a balalaika.
      2. Lopatov 25 February 2020 19: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: chenia
        Well, you caught me.
        Okay, like an Eskimo with a balalaika.

        No, a good example.
        Exactly as a scuba gunner. Necessarily necessary. But unlike the tankers, the Nicherts are not trained.
        Even the real use of an insulating gas mask. Not to mention the "lock" on the hydraulic simulator, like tankers. Some.
      3. Bad_gr 26 February 2020 19: 38 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        Not to mention the "lock" on the hydraulic simulator, like tankers. Some.

        I served in Hungary as a driver-mechanic (training in Debricen, linear unit in Veszprem). We didn’t have a hydrotracer, we wandered around in the pool with gas masks. And driving under water itself (5 meters) was already in the summer. I managed to shut off the engine 2 times under water. At full throttle, I pulled the rotation lever (on command from the shore), the engine and died out (exhaust under water, through the valves - no power reserve). The engine started with air and at the same time with a starter. Left himself, without help from outside.
  • Dmitriyag 25 February 2020 13: 55 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    It makes no sense to raise hummingbirds (rockets, new ammunition) Any target is hit in 40 seconds.
  • Operator 25 February 2020 14: 53 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    For a promising tank, it is necessary to clearly separate flies from cutlets - the tank needs a gun to hit priority targets (armored vehicles and firing points), for everything else, KAZ will do.

    A 160-mm low-ballistic smooth-bore gun is what a promising tank needs: an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile will penetrate any armored vehicles, a high-explosive fragmentation caliber projectile will destroy any firing point.
    1. garri-lin 25 February 2020 17: 47 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      125 mm will destroy any target on the battlefield, except for the tank in the forehead. Tanks do not fight tanks. An output of 125 mm is sufficient for both pillboxes and milking firing points and for most equipment. And for tanks there are several missiles. Smart, expensive, able to overcome KAZ. 2-4 missiles in the tank. And you do not need monsters 160 mm.
  • 5-9
    5-9 25 February 2020 14: 56 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Taking into account the development and the mass appearance of KAZ (anti-tank anti-tank systems), the only reliable means will remain the OBPS, it’s much more difficult to strike a crowbar.
    The reserve for the mass of tanks of the “partners” has been exhausted, it will not be possible to significantly increase the reservation without increasing the mass, and modern shells to 2A82 with a reserve hit the extreme versions of the tanks of the “partners”, and there is a reserve for increasing the load of shells for 2A82 (the M829A4 partners have almost the crown creations, a larger crowbar in the Rheinmetall is no longer stuck). Therefore, today, before the appearance of the new generation of tanks at the "partners", 152 mm are redundant and not needed. And as they appear, they will be needed. How to hit Armata from a 120-mm “partners” is also not clear ... but it doesn’t seem to be soaring them.
    1. garri-lin 25 February 2020 18: 00 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Kaz begins to work against BOPS. Moreover, it makes no sense to put 152mm. KAZ will work on its bops.
    2. Grigory_45 25 February 2020 21: 48 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: 5-9
      Taking into account the development and the mass appearance of KAZ (anti-tank anti-tank systems), the only reliable means will remain the OBPS, it’s much more difficult to strike a crowbar.

      Yes, scrap is the most problematic in terms of countering it. However, KAZ has not yet received wide distribution. And those that are able to intercept only subsonic targets. Conclusion - a supersonic ATGM with a high degree of probability will overcome the barrier and hit the tank. The second - there were ATGMs and special ammunition (and for a relatively long time), hitting the tank in the upper hemisphere, through which KAZ cannot work. And the armor on the roof is thin, it will take without problems even a “bomb” with a low-power warhead.
      ATGM have not yet said their last word.

      Quote: 5-9
      Therefore, today, before the appearance of the new generation of tanks at the "partners", 152 mm are redundant and not needed.

      the question is not as simple as it seems. From the point of view of the defeat of armored vehicles, manpower - yes, a 125 mm is quite enough. But with fortifications, buildings - it's more complicated. There you need a suitcase larger than 125 mm.

      Quote: 5-9
      How to hit Armata from a 120-mm “partners” is also not clear ... but it doesn’t seem to be soaring them.

      until it soars, although they are developing new tank guns, but increasing the caliber very carefully. Making a bet, firstly, on the creation of a cannon-shell system (i.e. not only create more powerful guns, but also more powerful shells for them), and secondly, they rely on ATGMs (including aircraft basing - on tactical and attack aircraft, helicopters, UAVs) - it is the lights that will be called upon to hit heavily armored targets. "Fortunately", on Russian tanks (even modernized ones), no one is puzzled by the installation of KAZ.
      1. Saxahorse 25 February 2020 23: 26 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        Quote: Gregory_45
        And those that are able to intercept only subsonic targets. Conclusion - a supersonic ATGM with a high degree of probability will overcome the barrier and hit the tank.

        As far as I remember, all modern ATGMs are supersonic for sure. Did you remember Baby? :)
        1. Salty 25 February 2020 23: 32 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Saxahorse
          As far as I remember, all modern ATGM supersonic certainly

          Right? wink
          1. Saxahorse 26 February 2020 00: 22 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            It depends on which medium to measure of course. But in the air 400-600-800 m / s is exactly supersonic. laughing
            1. Salty 26 February 2020 00: 24 New
              • 5
              • 2
              +3
              A couple of ATGMs, which have a speed of 600-800, do not remind?
              1. Saxahorse 26 February 2020 00: 29 New
                • 1
                • 3
                -2
                Attack - 550 m \ s, Whirlwind - 600 m \ s
                1. Salty 26 February 2020 00: 41 New
                  • 4
                  • 1
                  +3
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  Attack - 550 m \ s, Whirlwind - 600 m \ s

                  Helicopters ... okay. Just in case - at Javelin-a 300 m / s, in the final section at all 100. Continue to ride.
        2. 5-9
          5-9 26 February 2020 07: 12 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Russian - yes, but others - rather no than yes .....
  • Bersaglieri 25 February 2020 16: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It will be required to punch with a "uranium crowbar" 1.5 meters + protection - they will install 152 mm. Or, they bore the charging chamber by 125 mm and lengthen the barrel (but these things are more than 80+ calibers, it is useless, thermodynamics :)). Wait and see.
  • demiurg 25 February 2020 17: 10 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Right now I’ll say a speech smart to horror (get ready to take notes).
    The author unobtrusively showed statistics on tank damage in modern wars. It was from tanks that 15-17% of tanks suffered. Just remember these numbers.
    And now I’m actually starting to broadcast.
    Yes, you can attach a 152-203-305-406mm to a tank. The percentage of tanks affected will increase at times? Avotfigushkivam. Instead of 15-17% we get 17-19%. Pilots and gunners will not give their. Ready or not, here I come write on bombs and shells for a long time. And what do we get in return?
    The volume that must be reserved while maintaining comparable ammunition is increasing by tens of percent. This time, and that's not all. You need a larger tower, you need a more powerful suspension and jerk, you need to increase the entire tank. These are just two.
    If anything, tanks spend most of their life riding cars and all kinds of transporters. And if there are no special problems with the railway, then problems will suddenly come out on the sea, air and land bridges. The ship and the aircraft have limitations on payload, the bridge has maximum load capacity. Not through every stream every 3-5 km there are bridges with a maximum weight of 70-80 tons.
    The main goals of the tank are a variety of bunkers and all kinds of foot soldiers (preferably enemy). But suddenly it turns out that the shot is something more like a little https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%B0_ ( % D0% 9F% D0% A2% D0% A0% D0% 9A) 200 bucks a shot, the weight of a set of 15 kg (I don’t know how to link, sorry) is cheaper and more effective at destroying any dugouts. 152mm projectile is very redundant, even 125mm in modern realities against dugouts and infantry is excessive excess.
    And now the question arises, why then all these Wishlist with 152 bending, et cetera?
    Is it not more profitable to want a tank weighing the same 50-55 tons, with maximum protection against the main threats to the tank, anti-tank systems of all stripes, aviation and artillery, with a relatively small-caliber gun? Mannerheim Line Level Bunkers? A Tulip battery, spending $ 1-1,5 million in guided munitions, will destroy in a few minutes what tens of millions spent on seizing enemy garrisons. If the pillboxes are simpler, there is 152mm divisional artillery, and 120mm brigade artillery, everyone has adjustable ammunition. And in between, the gods of war will present their marines with beautiful fireworks. Enemy tanks must destroy specialized means, they do it better, cheaper, and with less loss.
    And the infantry needs armor on the battlefield, which is guaranteed to destroy the sniper, draw trenches and firing points, transport them under fire, take out the wounded, deliver stew and cartridges. Nowhere in these tasks there is no need for a projectile weighing 40 kg, and at the cost of a fret grant.
    Actually, why did I write all this? Oh yes. We need a T-15, with a 45-57mm gun and with an increase in the number of guided missiles on board. There will be no more disfoules. But the territories will always need to be occupied.
    1. Bersaglieri 26 February 2020 12: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      "ATGM will bring power to the battlefield," yes. And here where as prose with scaling warhead :)
  • Operator 25 February 2020 17: 15 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Spade
    super expensive with precision manufacturing precision

    Kinetic rockets became cheaper and easier than an order of magnitude in connection with the deployment of large-scale production of solid-state accelerometers for smartphones and cars.
    1. Lopatov 25 February 2020 19: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      Kinetic rockets became cheaper and easier than an order of magnitude in connection with the deployment of large-scale production of solid-state accelerometers for smartphones and cars.

      The problem is completely different.
      Eccentricity cannot be cured by electronics. As well as speed deviation due to gunpowder. This is the issue of unguided active-reactive armor-piercing ammunition.

      Well, if we talk about guided weapons, here is the problem of controllability in hypersound itself.
      1. Operator 25 February 2020 20: 04 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        We are talking exclusively about kinetic SDs - the problem of their controllability is solved in the field of solid-state SRI.
        1. Lopatov 25 February 2020 20: 13 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          It is exclusively about kinetic ur

          Irrelevant.
          Hypersonic ammunition. Or guided missile, or uncontrolled. For the first - technical difficulties in the field of hypersonic control. For the second, there are technical difficulties associated with eliminating dispersion due to a rocket engine, moreover, on a non-rotating rocket.
          1. Operator 25 February 2020 20: 15 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            There is no difficulty with inertial guidance in hypersound.
            1. Lopatov 25 February 2020 20: 36 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Operator
              There is no difficulty with inertial guidance in hypersound.

              The question is not in the control system, the question is in the controls. In their effectiveness while maintaining adequate cost. No wonder at one time the Americans were going to control only on the acceleration site.
              1. Operator 25 February 2020 21: 16 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                To control hypersound, a deflectable aerodynamic skirt is used, and not rudders.
                1. Lopatov 25 February 2020 21: 28 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Moreover, the "skirt" is expensive and complicated. It’s special how to withstand high temperatures. and it is extremely accurate to control the rocket along the entire trajectory. For the earth is near. About one and a half to two meters
                  1. Operator 25 February 2020 21: 50 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    The skirt is cheap and simple - in the form of a deflectable tail of the conical-shaped armor-piercing rod, it is deflected with the help of internal piezoelectric actuators, maintains a trajectory with an accuracy of 0,1 meters for every second of flight - i.e. when direct aiming in the center of the frontal silhouette of the tank, the shell burrows into the ground no earlier than after 15 seconds of flight at a range of about 25 km.
                    1. Bersaglieri 26 February 2020 14: 16 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      "Skirt" is for BB in the upper atmosphere. Below 5000m0 = it doesn’t work, because it’s wild resistance (note that with supersonic flow around the braking forces are proportional to 2-3 degrees of speed :))
                      1. Operator 26 February 2020 15: 00 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        At supersonic / hypersound, aerodynamic drag mainly depends on the cone angle of the projectile head, and not on the cross-sectional area (due to the greater contribution of the shock wave front to the drag, rather than air friction on the surface).

                        With the same projectile lengthening, the conical shape has the smallest taper angle; therefore, a naturally formed skirt in the tail of the conical projectile does not affect aerodynamic drag.
                      2. Bersaglieri 27 February 2020 12: 15 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        But if the skirt falls into the "aerodynamic shadow", then it will not work as a control, fully.
                      3. Operator 27 February 2020 12: 29 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        For a hypersonic BPS flying along a flat trajectory, only a small taxiing is needed to compensate for wind drift and manufacturing design defects, which the skirt can handle.

                        In addition, in addition to the head shock wave, the supersonic / hypersound also generates a tail shock wave (an order of magnitude weaker), which is why the skirt controls it.
                      4. Bersaglieri 27 February 2020 14: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        must be considered and simulated. But if the skirt is in the "shadow" of the main wave, then its efficiency will be near-zero.
                      5. Operator 27 February 2020 14: 53 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        So I’m just talking about this - the “near-zero” efficiency of an aerodynamic skirt operating in the region of the tail shock wave is quite sufficient to adjust the flight direction of a conical-shaped hypersonic BPS.

                        Using a deflectable BPS toe working in the head shock region would be unnecessarily effective.
        2. Bersaglieri 26 February 2020 12: 17 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          What is hypersound at ground level, in dense layers? Only the "scrap" - and even then burns and brakes quickly :)
          1. Bersaglieri 26 February 2020 14: 13 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            "shkolota" zinnusut and "pozpeoty" - they did not teach physics :)
  • Gust 25 February 2020 18: 18 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    The 152 mm gun is definitely needed! And now to the misconceptions:
    1. Reduced portable BC. Yes, it is decreasing, but a large CD should not be an end in itself. Other things being equal, the consumption of 152 mm of weapons of destruction will be 1,5-2 times less than 125 mm, while the distance of opening fire grows.
    2. Decreases the survivability of the trunk. Yes, it is decreasing, but the tank does not fire bursts in a modern competitive battle. Well, if a couple of dozen times manages to shoot accurately. And yes, for training, you can use weakened charges and have interchangeable trunks. And after: missiles also reduce the resource, and quite strongly. They generally need a start with compressed air.
    3. Increases the weight of the tank and the reserved volume. Yes, it is increasing. But with an increase in weight by 10%, 1,5-2 times greater efficiency is achieved with a qualitative increase in characteristics. A Western school admits an MBT weight of 70 tons, but that's a lot. In a weight of 60 tons, you can fit everything.
    4. There are no diesels. There are (at least old) V92C2, etc. When you switch to a hybrid circuit (with partial electric movement) everything will be OK.
    1. Lopatov 25 February 2020 19: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Rafale
      Other things being equal, the consumption of 152 mm of weapons of destruction will be 1,5-2 times less than 125 mm, while the distance of opening fire grows.

      Not a fact.
      Consumption depends on the enemy .. Shooting at target targets, direct fire ... Caliber does not really play.

      For example, a range of 1500, a tank in the trench. The average consumption of 122 mm cumulative is 10 pieces, the average 152 mm cumulative is 10 pieces
      PF is almost the same. For example, BTR / SPTRK in the trench. range of 1000 m. Five high-explosive from 2C1 or 4 high-explosive from 2C3
  • bk0010 25 February 2020 20: 46 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    You have to go from tasks. For what purposes does the tank lack a 125-mm gun? If only to destroy tanks, then can an ATGM put an external supersonic? If there are prefabricated bunkers / bunkers that are resistant to 125 mm OF - then the gun is definitely needed. What the tank definitely doesn’t need is a howitzer: it’s hard to hit a small, and even more so moving target. And yet 2A83 is not necessary: ​​they said that her energy is not much higher than that of 2A82.
    1. Lopatov 25 February 2020 20: 59 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: bk0010
      For what purposes does the tank lack a 125-mm gun?

      To hit targets in a field fort. constructions, as well as in buildings. As practice shows, 152-mm self-propelled guns are dragged for direct fire constantly.
      1. garri-lin 25 February 2020 22: 01 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        But in this matter, you can go the other way. A heavy, slow projectile milking 125 mm. I wonder frankly why it is still not there. Cast iron and explosives 152 mm in gauge 125. The length of the projectile will increase by a factor of 2. The speed is lower so that the trunks are not spoiled. Possible leading cumulative with focus on concrete. Impact on the goal will be the same?
  • Grigory_45 25 February 2020 21: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The author does not understand the question at all, mixed everything together .. (And - do you have any editors at VO, or do they just not look at the articles before they are published?

    For BPS, the initial velocity of the projectile is decisive
    both initial speed and mass. Speed, of course, to a greater extent, but also mass is important - it is not without reason that BOPS are made from heavy alloys - depleted uranium or tungsten
    and for OFS - the velocity and mass (caliber) of the projectile
    for a high-explosive fragmentation projectile, speed is not a decisive indicator. Crucial is the mass of explosives, high-quality crushing of the body into fragments and a diagram of their expansion.

    For KMS and SD gun caliber is not critical
    - here is the news, however !!! And nothing, that the larger the caliber of cumulative ammunition, all other things being equal, the greater the mass of explosives, the greater the cumulative funnel, and, accordingly, the armor penetration.

    The only thing that is more or less true is the conclusion:
    It’s hardly promising to increase firepower by increasing the caliber of a gun,
    rather, it is futile after some limit (previously the problem was not so acute, although it was noticeable even before and during the Second World War - replacing the 37 mm by 45 and 47 mm, then by 76 mm and 90-100 mm and above led to a significant decrease in ammunition and rate of fire guns). Now the tank guns are very close to this limit. And soon we will see a new round of confrontation between armor and shell.
    1. Lopatov 25 February 2020 21: 22 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Gregory_45
      for a high-explosive fragmentation projectile, speed is not a decisive indicator.

      Is an. Less is better.
      Since most of the tank’s targets hit by HE shells are “flat”, that is, they do not have a pronounced height.
      Not for nothing that almost everyone developed tank HE shells with remote detonation on the trajectory. And even here, the lower the speed, the higher the accuracy with identical fuses
      1. bk0010 25 February 2020 22: 26 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The lower the speed, the less persistence - where the hell you get. And to solve the problem by artillery (square-nest) methods, the tank has neither time nor an excess of shells.
  • Sarkazm 25 February 2020 22: 40 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4




    Nedosau and especially nedotank - 155mm SPM Palmaria from the Italian Oto Melara, was in service with Libya at Gaddafi, how many of them remain unknown, the pipe has frames of two wrecked.
  • Saxahorse 25 February 2020 23: 48 New
    • 0
    • 5
    -5
    The article is interesting, however, almost every paragraph is controversial and causes a desire to refute. :) We will not undertake everything, but the only real argument against the 152 mm gun is in doubt.

    Installation of a 152 mm gun on the Boxer and Object 195 tanks
    Increasing firepower by increasing the caliber of the gun leads to a significant increase in the mass of the tank and, as a result, to a decrease in its protection and mobility, that is, on the whole the effectiveness of the combat vehicle decreases


    As far as I remember in numbers, the mass of the ob-195 was about 50 tons, the mass of today's Almaty is 55 tons. A tank with a 152 mm cannon suddenly turned out to be lighter than with a 125 mm cannon.

    The same with ammunition. On the ob-195 - 24 shells, on the ob-477 - 35 shells on Armata for some reason 32 shells. Again, the advantage of the 125 mm gun for some reason is not noticeable.

    For some reason, all the arguments against the 152 mm guns turn out to be the same superficial and clearly far-fetched.

    In general, it seems that the main problem of increasing firepower by switching to 152mm was the BPS of the corresponding caliber. It is the attempts to equip the tank with a kind of monstrous BOPS-m that sharply overestimate the requirements for the gun and significantly limit the capabilities of the tank as a whole. And why do you need BOPS for such a gun? If there is a 152 mm caliber ATGM (such as a Cornet), the crew will definitely use it first in a rare encounter with an enemy tank. Just because BOPS melee weapons, 2-3 km, (otherwise you will not get into the enemy’s tank), but the ATGM from 8-10 km will hit the enemy’s eye.

    Judging by the actual use of tanks, an increase in firepower has matured. A much larger area of ​​destruction of the OFS 152 mm will significantly accelerate the sweeping of enemy defenses. And today, only love for BOPS hinders the strengthening of firepower.
  • ustas-oto 22 March 2020 14: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The size of the gun’s caliber, you can argue and carry out calculations, but first you need to hit the target.
    So in between the 21st century, it's time to create something fundamentally new.
  • Diverter 23 March 2020 22: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Tanks fight with tanks very rarely. Statistics, she knows everything. In addition, the tank in the field alone is not a warrior at all. Regarding calibers, I already wrote that my deep conviction in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is too many calibers. (in this dimension leave 100, 120, 130, 152) Here is the same 125 mm suggested ...... remove. Instead, introduce 130 mm, which has been used in the Navy for a long time, and it was used earlier in artillery. Calibration unification is a reduction of problems during the war.
    1. Golovan Jack 23 March 2020 22: 45 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Quote: Saboteur
      Here is the same 125 mm suggested ...... remove. Instead, introduce 130 mm, which has been used in the Navy for a long time

      Is it a unitary in the Navy? Well, and what is the "unification"?
      1. Diverter 25 March 2020 08: 55 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        M 46 has a separate case loading. Unification of shells at least.
        1. Golovan Jack 25 March 2020 12: 10 New
          • 3
          • 5
          -2
          Something I'm confused already. Which side

          Quote: Saboteur
          M 46

          к

          Quote: Saboteur
          130 mm, which is used in the Navy

          I do not understand request
          1. Diverter 26 March 2020 18: 32 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            130 mm, M 46, C 69, C 70 (tank !!!!), Beach artillery complex is all 130 mm caliber
            1. Golovan Jack 26 March 2020 19: 56 New
              • 2
              • 3
              -1
              Quote: Saboteur
              130 mm, M 46, C 69, C 70 (tank !!!!), Beach artillery complex is all 130 mm caliber

              The 130-mm rifled S-70 tank gun was a prototype gun designed for the IS-7 heavy tank

              Umm .. are you exactly adequate? wink

              Here is the word "threaded" - very annoying, do not believe it laughing
              1. Diverter 26 March 2020 22: 06 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Take off your cap. Extend the horizons of your thoughts wider and will not strain anything. The guns are smoothbore and rifled. And oh, horror! Even the tanks! A unitary shot or a separate shell shot does not matter, if both are used for a smooth barrel, then the shell can be the same for them. The release of shells of the same caliber, it is much better than several to different guns. 130 mm unitary is quite a big and heavy thing. Therefore, it is possible to develop a single shot for artillery and tanks. separately sleeve.
                1. Golovan Jack 26 March 2020 22: 15 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  Quote: Saboteur
                  It is possible to develop a single shot for artillery and tanks. separately sleeve

                  You know, after the army and tanks I had a colleague ... he was a Hungarian and was responsible for the "platform" - in fact, for what all my (and teams) work was based on.

                  So: I spent a lot of life on how to wean this good man from the phrase "theoretically it works".

                  I don’t intend to re-educate you - they don’t pay me for it request yes