Two words about uranium scrap


To begin with: to the joy of the tankers, we will state that the tank is still the most really useful and formidable combat vehicle on the land battlefield. This was and is the main percussion instrument, it is the support of the advancing infantry and so on.


The fact that from the beginning of his fighting career in the First World War and to our time the tank has traveled just a huge distance along the evolutionary ladder, no one calls into question. However, there are moments that it would be worth talking about, because suddenly there was a realization that "everything is somehow wrong."

This is perhaps the second most important component tank. Or about the first, it’s hard to say here, which is more important: armor or weapons. For the tank works in battle, and that, and others, and, I repeat, it is difficult to say which is more important.

If you carefully look at how tanks are used today and how they fight, one can say the following: in fact, the development of weapons, if it did not stop, is slowed down in full.

Let's see how rich, as they say, we and our potential.

Since 1970, the main weapon for us has been the 2A46 gun, which has passed fire and water modifications, that is, the 2A46M and 2A75 variants. And installed on the T-64A. Then there were T-72, T-80, T-90. And only for "Almaty" and T-90M developed 2A82, the same caliber of 125 mm, which is more likely an exception to the rule.

Ask why?

But because our potential is doing just the same.

Americans and Germans using the Rheinmetall or Rh120 120-mm tank gun did not last that long, but also quite a while: since 1979. And nothing, the latest versions of "Abrams" and "Leopard-2" quite normally operate with this gun.

The British L30 is younger, since 1989, but in fact it is L11A2, originally from the same late 70s, and language does not turn out to be called successful. Yes, the French CN120-26 looks newer, but even she of their 80s, just waiting for a tank for a long time.

But in general, the situation is peculiar: only the Frenchwoman CN120-26 and our 2A82 can be called new with a stretch. With a very big stretch. And over the past 40-50 years, no changes have occurred, even the calibers have remained the same.

Although the plans we had a replacement for 152 mm in the 90s of the last century, in response to potential planned change to 140 mm, but the collapse of the USSR put an end to everything. As a result, we remained 125 mm, just changed the type of guns for the T-14 and T-90M.

In general, the T-14 could well be equipped with a 152-mm gun, the so-called 2A83, but what can we say about this, if we can count the standard T-14 on our fingers.

So if evolution is to be sought somewhere, it’s in shells. This is logical, since in terms of calibers and the guns themselves the military developers are completely silent, then there is only one hope for the shells.


And here everything is simple. All the last 40 years. The main thing is to take the BOPS, the armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectile, to disperse it well in the long barrel of the tank gun so that it gains good kinetic energy, and the rest will be done by the physicist for you.

The best way to sentence a tank from a long distance. At close range, RPG-7 and its descendants with a cumulative charge are still good, but at long range ...

At the far end, scrap is still good, against which it is bad in terms of reception. The only question is the material. Germans have always loved tungsten, Americans prefer depleted uranium. However, uranium is the destiny of those who have their own nuclear energy.

As for our army, we have both tungsten scrap and uranium. But they prefer to shoot uranium only at special training grounds. To avoid.

Kinetic energy, as you know, depends on the velocity of the projectile. Speed ​​is achieved by comprehensive work on explosives, a gun and the shape of a shell. Well, the main shamanism is the core material.

It is known that uranium has a density of 19,05 g / cm3, which is 2,5 times more than that of steel. Since uranium is heavier, it also gains energy in a larger volume than any other material. In addition, uranium is a very solid material, it is easy for him to flash any armor from any material. And since the thermal conductivity of uranium is also very low, and the projectile does not expand from friction, like others, the penetration is higher.

Plus such a useful property as the pyrophoricity of uranium dust, which is formed when a shell penetrates armor. This dust easily flares up, adding problems to the crew.

Well, the main plus is that uranium is just free raw materials, since in essence it is just waste from the nuclear industry.

True, it’s conditionally free, because not only is it “slightly” fonit in terms of radioactivity, it is also poisonous. So working with him is not as easy as we would like. The Germans prefer not to bother.

Tungsten is slightly denser than uranium - 19,25 g / cm3. A little over 1%. And it also has its own superbonus: a high melting point, 2,6 times more than that of uranium.

At the moment of contact with the armor, when enormous temperatures act on the core, uranium scrap can partially lose its hardness. There is such a term: "swim" from the heat. But tungsten at temperatures ...

The disadvantage of tungsten is the cost. Advantages - working with it is somewhat easier, and the lack of a radioactive background is such a nice bonus.

It is clear that in this situation, the designers of all countries are cast out, whoever can with BOPS.

There are quite a few methods, by the way. Different plumage, flight stabilizers, armor-piercing caps of various shapes and from different materials. Although basically the task for everyone is the same: to make scrap as thin and strong as possible. Plus, there is a length limit dictated by the combat laying of the tank itself. Plus, automatic loaders (who have it) also require attention from designers. So that you do not have to cram the unshielded. But yes, the AZ is demanding on the size of the projectile, because the projectile cannot be very long. In short, it should fit in size.

Therefore, the task of inventing a projectile with fundamentally new characteristics for an existing gun is comparable to the development of a new gun, or maybe even more complicated.

Even if we take as an example our main BPS “Mango”, which was created back in the USSR in the 80s, and which simply cannot be called modern. Nevertheless, this charm, created just for Abrams, is far from tungsten scrap with the possibility of acceleration to 2M.

Two words about uranium scrap

A ballistic cowl, behind which an armor-piercing cap is hidden, followed by a damper that allows you to turn the projectile (normalize) when hit at an angle, only after all this are two cores made of an alloy of tungsten, nickel and steel. The total length of the cores is 420 millimeters, and the thickness is only 18 millimeters, the size of the active part of the entire BPS is 574 millimeters. Well, of course, stabilizing plumage and 3,4 kilograms of additional charge.

When shooting from two kilometers, "Mango" ideally pierces 450 millimeters of homogeneous armor, and at an angle of 60 degrees - 230 millimeters.

The shell was modernized not so long ago, it turned out "Mango-M", or, as it is jokingly called, "Mango-Mango". The total length of the cores increased to 610 mm, armor increased to 560 mm, and at an angle of 60 degrees - 280 mm.

Considering how many Soviet / Russian tanks are riding around the world, a good idea with an eye on exports. The new Mango will easily sew the Abrams board, and those who are in the tower will not have to sweetly, if you observe the angle. 45 degrees or less - and hello to the towers!

There is also a “Pattern." An interesting projectile, with very advanced characteristics on the one hand and with some constant inarticulate problems in production.


ZBM-44 “Lekalo” seems to have been adopted by the end of the 90s, but the army never received them in sane quantities. All the same tungsten core, armor penetration - 650 millimeters in a straight line and about 320 at an angle of 60 degrees. But some crumbs in terms of release and complete incomprehensibility. Information flashed that the Ministry of Defense ordered 2000 of these shells. In fact - BC for fifty tanks. So think whether it is useful or not.

Yes, better than Mango, but why so little?

Meanwhile, armored piercing shells M829A2 and M829A3 that have already entered service with the U.S. Army can boast of 740 and 770-800 mm armor penetration, which is very unpleasant.

And according to foreign military experts, the completely new M829E4 BOPs are capable of piercing up to 850-900 mm of steel equivalent at a distance of 2000-2500 m.


It is clear that the modern concept of battle does not provide for battles, as near Prokhorovka, but nonetheless. The practice of using tanks in the Donbass has shown that a duel is quite possible, especially with local skirmishes that have under them control over territories and settlements.

How to answer the tanks of "potential" is a question. The greater the range of BOPS, the more likely it is to hit an enemy tank and survive.

Yes, now those who are thinking will say: what about “Lead”?

Yes, Lead. More precisely, three "Lead".


Just "Lead" is already in stories, since it was created all in the same 80s of the last century. Tungsten carbide core, length 635 mm. Penetration from two kilometers along the normal is 650 millimeters and 320 at an angle of 60 degrees. Very good for its time. For the 21st century - well, so-so.

But the base turned out to be what is needed with great potential for refinement / modernization. And already in Russia “Lead-1” and “Lead-2” appeared.

Lead-1 with a tungsten core pierces 700-740 millimeters of homogeneous steel.

"Lead-2" with a core made of an alloy of tungsten and uranium pierces 800-830 millimeters.

In general, you don’t even have to think about where to shoot at the corps, since it doesn’t matter where - it must break through. And with a minimally good set of circumstances, the tower will say "give up."

Despite the fact that the length of the ammunition approaches critically inconvenient for domestic AZs, these tanks can shoot all the tanks that we have in service: T-72 with all letters after the numbers, T-80 and T-90. By the way, if you really need to - and the T-14 can “swing” with Lead.

I could not, alas, find information on why Lead was not in the series. It seems that the tests were not just successful, but very successfully shot in 2016, and ... And the Ministry of Defense orders a little “Lekalo”.

Meanwhile, “Lead” is actually the only ammunition that NATO tanks must fear to cramp. And all without exception. Even though the T-72B3 will fire.

Now the knowledgeable will say about the "Vacuum". Say yes. About SuperBOPS, capable of destroying everything armored, invented in the world today.

This is actually scrap, against which I do not see anything. You can talk about various DZ systems, about equivalents, but scrap, dispersed to God knows how many meters per second, is also scrap in Africa.

But the creation of this projectile in the 90s also testified to the fact that, when creating the “Vacuum”, the designers obviously worked “on the table”, since it was unrealistic to shove a meter-long munition into the existing AZ transporters.

And the "Vacuum" would lie in promising developments (and he lay there) until they came up with the aforementioned 2A82 and 2A82-1M, the AZs of which could just work with meter-sized saplings.

In the tests, the "Vacuum-1" confidently punched 900 millimeters of the armor from two kilometers when hit normal. And this is more than serious.

Abrams of the latest modifications in the thickest place of the tower has a protection equivalent to 900–950 millimeters of homogeneous steel. "Merkava" boasts an armor of 900 millimeters. This is like the most stubborn guys, so what? And he must take their "Vacuum". Or even if they don’t take it, the crew will disperse the stars from the helmets for a long time.

But, alas, everything is broken by piece picking with "Armata". There is no need for a tank, and there is no need for Vacuums. Both.

Although, if 2A82 is installed in the T-90M, and this is quite possible, the gun will easily enter, you just need to tinker with the AZ, then the shell will receive a residence permit and the right to life.

Shells. Since “Vacuum-1” is a good old tungsten alloy, and “Vacuum-2,” you guessed it, is from uranium.

And even more often they began to speak out loud about the "lead", but so far nothing to say about it, most likely, this is again a promising development for the 152 mm caliber.

Actually, what further to muddle the water, we don’t have trunks for both “Vacuums” in order to master them. The release of the T-90M and T-1 is such a sad matter in quantitative terms that the main combat mass as T-72, and will be in the next 15-20 years. And “Lead” will be for them for happiness. If it (Lead) is put on the stream at all.

If you look at the future, then perhaps it is not. And the point is not that there is either money or mind to release new shells. The thing is again in physics.

You can not constantly increase the energy of the projectile due to speed. Beyond the speed limit of 2 km / s, the core begins to collapse in a collision with armor without an effective increase in armor penetration. And further experiments with propelling charges become really useless. There will be no development.

Continuing to increase the length / weight of the core is also unlikely to succeed. One and a half meter BOPS will require a new tower and a new AZ, since it is impossible to shove it into the old ones. And in the cramped tank interior with such a durovine not turn around if something happens. In case of refusal of the AZ as in Abrams.

Other alloys ... Maybe. Other materials, too. But this work is not for one decade, as it seems to me.

In general, of course, by and large, while the shell defeats the armor. And he will do it for some time. But just in our case, a situation is very possible when the pace of development of gunpowder and shells simply lag behind the pace of development of armor.

And only then, but we will get a new qualitative leap. That is what I wrote about at the beginning of the article. Transition to a new caliber. And there is something to think about, because the 2A83 monster about 152 mm will easily rip off anyone’s tower.

But it will be a completely different story.

In the meantime, the apparent lag in equipping our tanks with modern BOPS is still, in the language of diplomacy, “causing concern”. But this is only for now.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vladimir_2U April 2 2020 06: 06 New
    • 17
    • 3
    +14
    potential planned
    Probable they are probable.
    far from tungsten scrap with the possibility of acceleration to 2M
    I hope this is a typo of the author, 2M for armor-piercing, even by the standards of the Second World War, is simply nioc. A mediocre article in general.
    1. Sahalinets April 2 2020 06: 34 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Probably there should be 5M. 2M is the armor-piercing T-34-76.
    2. Disappointed article. I have not read anything new. Here, at VO, periodically, but regularly write about all our BOPSs and in more detail about imported ones. This article is a listing of numbers against the background of problems of production and adoption.
    3. Nikolaevich I April 2 2020 06: 50 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      I hope this is a typo of the author, 2M for armor-piercing, even by the standards of the Second World War, is simply nioc. .

      I believe that a typo ... The author probably wanted to say: 2000 m / s ... Now, the "benchmark" in improving BOPs is achieving a speed of 2000 m / s ...! And then ... over 2000 m / s!
      1. silver_roman April 5 2020 15: 58 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        based on the material, you are wrong, because at ultra-high speeds the shell will simply collapse on the armor, so the desire for super speeds is not a panacea.
        1. Nikolaevich I April 6 2020 00: 20 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Well, come on! laughing What about V. Shukshin? “You claim that shamanism has been eradicated in the North; and they are quietly reproaching themselves!” ...
    4. georg.prokudin April 2 2020 16: 15 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Actually, this article is chewing on the nuances and features that are already losing relevance. Well, what can I say, if the range of destruction of armored objects and tanks, including on European TVDs, due to the terrain features, the existing tank cannon buildings hardly exceeds 2 km. modern combined arms combat still has to reach this distance. It is very likely that the tank will be hit even before reaching the range of its shot with direct fire from the ground or a helicopter, a drone, high-precision ammunition, etc. Therefore, the modern tank, the weapon of the leading edge, occupies its own, very narrow niche. (somewhere around 3-5%, if not less) And it is unlikely that the tanks in the combined arms battle can act separately. In this case, they will become just targets, they will bear unacceptable losses and will not fulfill the combat mission. Based on this understanding of modern combat, it is necessary to arm tanks. It seems that highly mobile and best defended in battle, they, in addition to weapons, including now firing arrows, should be armed with long-range weapons or other missiles, which should be aimed at the target and with the help of drones, artillery and aircraft guides and hitting enemy tanks from the upper hemisphere such as American "javelins".
      1. Vladimir_2U April 2 2020 16: 17 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        Quote: georg.prokudin
        Actually, this article is chewing on the nuances
        Yes, there are practically no nuances here, an empty article.
      2. bk0010 April 2 2020 20: 08 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: georg.prokudin
        Well, what can I say, if the range of destruction of armored objects and tanks, including on European TVDs, due to the terrain, buildings existing tank cannons hardly exceeds 2 km. In modern combined arms combat, this distance still needs to be reached
        In modern combat, no one but tanks will reach this distance: everything will be burned by artillery or a nuclear strike. No one ATGM will let.
        1. 3danimal April 4 2020 04: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Why immediately nuclear? Do you think that everything will just start to be scattered nuclear weapons?
          1. bk0010 April 4 2020 11: 38 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Even if not immediately (which I doubt), the artillery will work no worse.
            1. 3danimal April 4 2020 12: 11 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Aviation, artillery of the enemy can greatly destroy ours.
            2. 3danimal April 4 2020 16: 17 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              (Conventionally. More abstract: with more or less equal forces, there may be losses in the same artillery).
              1. bk0010 April 4 2020 18: 52 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Therefore, I believe that it will begin immediately with a tactical nuclear weapons: why give the enemy a chance to withdraw him from the game.
                1. 3danimal April 4 2020 22: 23 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Ok, but a strong adversary also possesses it. And one must be prepared to receive similar damage.
                  1. bk0010 April 5 2020 02: 00 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Of course, no options. But if you do not pull, then there is a chance to destroy part of his funds first and they will not harm us.
                    1. 3danimal April 5 2020 13: 14 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      One feels a great hope to use nuclear weapons against a very strong and technically equipped enemy and not get anything in return. A very unlikely scenario. In addition, TNW (tactical) is air-based, and now on SLBMs.
                      IMHO, it is better not to bring to such a development. (We do not need Poland or the Baltic states)
                      1. bk0010 April 5 2020 17: 47 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        One feels a great hope to use nuclear weapons against a very strong and technically equipped enemy and not get anything in return.
                        Adjust sensitivity. There is only hope that they will have time to apply all this good before they knock it out.
                        Quote: 3danimal
                        IMHO, it is better not to bring to such a development.
                        And here it does not depend on us. We do not go white.
                      2. 3danimal April 5 2020 19: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        . We do not go white.

                        What are you talking about? I see no other reason for the start of such a conflict than an attack on a NATO member country. And such hot heads, with thoughts in the spirit of the 19th century empires, we have.
                      3. bk0010 April 5 2020 22: 08 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        It seems to me a much more likely option for the states to attack us. They rose in two world wars and may well try to solve any of their problems by arranging a third. And Europe, apparently, adheres to the same considerations, degrading its armies (so that they are not thrown in the first wave of the attack on us). Type: "if you want to fight, welcome to the attacking vanguard, there’s nothing to fight with us." Only the Poles are developing their armed forces, but they always had a grudge against us.
                      4. 3danimal April 6 2020 00: 40 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Very weird approach. But it does not take into account that wars always bring more losses. As a result of WW2, Europe was severely destroyed, the United States suffered significant losses in manpower and equipment. Put on a war footing industry. Huge efforts that in peacetime would do more good.
                        Do you consider human sacrifices among your citizens only as a trifle? For the US including? The trouble is that only an dictator with absolute power who is absent there can afford such an approach. Therefore, until such a thing has appeared, you can sleep peacefully. drinks
                      5. bk0010 April 6 2020 00: 46 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Your optimism is simply amazing ...
                      6. 3danimal April 6 2020 05: 51 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Not optimism, but calculation.
                        One cannot but take into account the domestic political situation and the structure of the country, which we are considering for a possible attack on us. And let me remind you that dictators and absolute monarchs started 2MB.
                        We have no mutual territorial claims with the United States. In armaments, parity (absolute, excluding geography) is only in nuclear weapons (we inherited it). We do not plan to turn the whole world into communism. We are not challenging the economy (unlike China).
                        Actually, China is considered as the main geopolitical opponent.
                    2. Farewell April 7 2020 18: 56 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      And that is why the US economy was the first in the world in the wake of two world wars.
                    3. 3danimal April 7 2020 19: 58 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      She was lucky with the location and the neighbors. And they dynamically developed and reached the world level even before the first world one.
                2. The comment was deleted.
  • antivirus April 3 2020 20: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    should be armed with long-range long range weapons or other missiles, which should be aimed at targets and with the help of drones

    - another and additional hatch for the departure of their equipped drones-shells (the Barmalei taught - showed cheapness and efficiency)
    tank is a platform of disposable (and cheap) drones, like BMP
    1. 3danimal April 6 2020 05: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Then you need a place for his equipment / storage. It will turn out something like a tank-BMP "Merkava". Appropriate weight.
  • silver_roman April 5 2020 15: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    not 2m, but 2 km / s
    1. Vladimir_2U April 5 2020 16: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Rather, a typo in the figure, 5 rather than 2, all the same, writing one character instead of five does not pull a typo.
  • Paul Siebert April 2 2020 06: 22 New
    • 16
    • 11
    +5
    A great article written in a lively, intelligible language.
    With a fair amount of humor.
    We wish our gunsmiths success in creating a truly irresistible ammunition! yes
  • svp67 April 2 2020 06: 35 New
    • 13
    • 1
    +12
    And only for "Almaty" and T-90M developed 2A82, the same caliber of 125 mm, which is more likely an exception to the rule.
    Well, why was there still another 125 mm TP D-91T (GRAU Index - 2A66), which was also tried on in the T-90 ...


    Yes, there is a solution that allows the use of elongated BOPSs in our tanks, already worked out - a crazy AZ, with pop-up panels
    1. Mytholog April 2 2020 10: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: svp67
      Yes, there is a solution that allows the use of elongated BOPSs in our tanks, already worked out - a crazy AZ, with pop-up panels

      There is a solution, only the economy will not pull it: the tower is too heavy, a new suspension is needed for it. Modernization of the T-72 with the replacement of the tower - no longer get out.
      Even in the photo that you brought - chassis on the basis of the T-80, but already 7 rollers on board.
      1. svp67 April 2 2020 10: 13 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Mytholog
        the tower is too heavy, it needs a new suspension.

        Not much heavier than the T-90M

        BOPSs are the lightest of shells and can be placed behind the tower, not very heavy structure ..
        1. Genry April 2 2020 11: 41 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Guys, do you know anything about the T-90M?
          A new tower, with a cannon like the T-14 and partial ammunition in the turret ...
          1. svp67 April 2 2020 11: 51 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: Genry
            A new tower, with a cannon like the T-14 and partial ammunition in the turret ...

            Unfortunately, the gun is still old ... And so everything is right.
            Quote: Genry
            and partial ammunition in the turret ...

            Which can be used for mechanized laying of elongated BOPS
            1. Genry April 2 2020 12: 52 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: svp67
              Unfortunately the gun is still old ..

              This is the "old" T-90MS (additional letter)
          2. Bad_gr April 2 2020 12: 04 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: svp67
            Not much heavier than the T-90M

            By type of ammunition size, heavier

            Although, taking into account that the main armor of the tower in its front part, the cannon (2.5 tons) is fixed there, it is possible that such a tower will be more balanced.
            1. svp67 April 2 2020 17: 15 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Bad_gr
              By type of ammunition size, heavier

              Firstly, here the Omsk citizens generally wanted to abandon the old MZ, and put the gunner and commander a little lower, and therefore the box is so huge. On the T-90M, you can put less on a dozen and a half BOPSs and only for them. The rest in AZ
              1. Bad_gr April 2 2020 17: 41 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Quote: svp67
                On the T-90M, you can put less on a dozen and a half BOPSs and only for them. The rest in AZ

                I guess, yes. In a crazy ammunition pack, it’s not a problem to pack BOPS in a unitary munition while keeping separate in the internal ammunition pack.
                1. svp67 April 2 2020 20: 04 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  I guess, yes. In a crazy ammunition pack, it’s not a problem to pack BOPS in a unitary munition while keeping separate in the internal ammunition pack.

                  Here I am talking about. And most importantly, making changes is not very difficult. By the way, the transition to a unitary one, in this case, would allow us not to increase the overall length of the artillery shot, or maybe even slightly decrease, with a longer projectile
    2. 3danimal April 5 2020 13: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yes, there is a solution that allows the use of elongated BOPSs in our tanks, already worked out - a crazy AZ, with pop-up panels

      The best solution for tank and crew survival good
  • Free wind April 2 2020 06: 48 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    The Americans have a great advantage, they know everything about our tanks, they drove on our tanks, they fired on them. Therefore, they are well aware of the capabilities of their guns. We never had their tanks. It is necessary to create a shell that would open the hatch at the tank, fly inside and with a cry of a banzai or say kirdyk, destroy the entire crew. laughing
    1. Vladimir_2U April 2 2020 06: 53 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Free Wind
      they know everything about our tanks
      Is it possible that at least we have M60, that they have a maximum of T-72 medium modes. at best, no exaggeration.
      1. Alf
        Alf April 2 2020 18: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        that they have a maximum of T-72 medium modes.

        They received T-80s from Ukraine after the collapse of the country.
        1. Vladimir_2U April 2 2020 19: 35 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          Exactly, I didn’t think about it, and UD could get from gooblakids.
          1. 3danimal April 5 2020 13: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            You can always outbid from one of the countries-buyers of Russian military equipment. Who refuses to sell the tank at a price that allows you to buy another 2-3?
        2. Pavel57 April 3 2020 00: 33 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          A pair of T-80s were sold to the British under Gorbachev.
  • Uncle Izya April 2 2020 07: 38 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    https://vpk.name/news/389398_kak_razbit_lob_abramsu.html
    Why is the author of Skomorokhov?
    Their material is written in vpk.name))
  • Zaurbek April 2 2020 07: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Only 900mm-1m BOPS, like the analogs of the 2a82 gun with a barrel length of 55 calibers from the 90s, are in service with NATO, on previous models. And we can’t put our gun into the masses .... although, it is necessary to put it massively on the T90 and on the modernized T72 and T80 .... I don’t know if AZ will allow it.
  • Operator April 2 2020 08: 06 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The longer the BOPS core, the thicker the armor it pierces, since when penetrating, the core decreases in length from 700-900 mm to 100-200 mm due to thermoplastic wear at the site of head contact with the armor and entrainment of the core metal from the punched hole.

    Therefore, the 700-mm core of a 125-mm single-charge BOPS, even made of an alloy of uranium or tungsten, will not be able to penetrate the armor equivalent to a 900-950-mm homogeneous steel plate (as in the latest models of Abrams, Leopard and Merkava )

    It is required to use unitary shots instead of shots of separate loading with the rejection of the carousel automatic loader located under the tower and the transition to the conveyor AZ located in the aft recess of the tower.
    1. Vladimir_2U April 2 2020 19: 43 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Operator
      The longer the BOPS core, the thicker the armor it pierces

      Maybe due to an increase in lateral load, including?

      Quote: Operator
      unitary shots instead of separate shots
      But this is far from a fact, a conveyor or other AZ with a smaller length limit than a carousel one will allow shoving a long crowbar with an additional charge and a sleeve, also long, into the gun. Unitary, in this case a fetish.
      1. Operator April 2 2020 19: 52 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        At any lateral load, the core undergoes grinding during penetration (and also loses speed). If its length at the end of penetration decreases to 10 cm or less, then the transverse load will also drop, the core will not be able to get out of the armor on its back side.

        For the purpose of compactness of the armor-piercing shot, the rod is sunk almost the entire length into the sleeve / cap of the unitary shot. The decrease in the volume of the powder charge is compensated by its prepressing and the addition of HMX to preserve the estimated combustion time.
        1. Vladimir_2U April 2 2020 20: 06 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Operator
          At any lateral load, the core undergoes grinding during penetration (and also loses speed)
          Possibly, but won't a higher lateral load increase the chance of breaking through?
          Quote: Operator
          For the purpose of compactness of the armor-piercing shot, the rod is sunk almost the entire length into the sleeve / cap of the unitary shot
          Well, in Soviet BOPS, the additional charge almost completely covers the scrap, nothing will prevent the long sleeve from being combined with the long additional charge.
          1. Operator April 2 2020 20: 14 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            In shots of separate loading, the length of the cap is empty - it is not used to place a longer shaft.

            And why divide one shot into two parts (reducing the rate of fire of the gun and increasing the cost of the shot) when you can not do this.
            1. Vladimir_2U April 2 2020 20: 38 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Well, with a cap you can push much more gunpowder into the chamber. Thicker scrap to do, with leading experiment.
              1. philosopher April 5 2020 18: 36 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                They are trying to make scrap as thin as possible, but to maintain the necessary mass, they use high-density materials. Like it or not, the directions of movement to increase the efficiency of BOPS are not so diverse. As you rightly noted, the leading devices in our shells are the main potential for modernization “all other things being equal”, and for a significant increase in armor penetration, all the same, only an increase in the length of the core will give a noticeable effect. Again, the total length of the projectile with the cap will increase the length of the breech of the gun, which will negatively affect its total length and weight. Nothing is better here than a unitary telescopic shot comes to mind. Ideally, the length of a unitary shot = the length of the projectile with the maximum filling of the internal space with gunpowder. Perhaps increasing the diameter of the rear of the chamber will add mass of gunpowder while maintaining the overall length. But here are their pitfalls.
                1. Vladimir_2U April 6 2020 04: 34 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Gunpowder generally seems to have exhausted itself.
  • Nikolaevich I April 2 2020 08: 13 New
    • 8
    • 2
    +6
    Well .... The author, having “mournfully mourned” the 125-mm caliber, turned hopefully to the 152-mm caliber .... But was the Author in a hurry? Well, this six-inch surrender to a fig? "Looking around fearfully," I still can not resist and again recall the idea of ​​"active-reactive BOPs" in calibers of 120/125 mm! Their purpose is to give "crowbars" speeds of more than 2000 m / s ... Yes ... problems arose when developing "active-reactive BOPs" ... (those same "gullies" that were not visible on paper ...) ... developments have stalled! But did not stop! Scheduled "technical solutions" that can overcome the problems identified ... In the case of a successful solution to technical difficulties, active-reactive 120/125-mm BOPs should appear ... And why is the "emphasis" placed on the "crowbars"? In the BOPS, the striking element is the “armor-piercing core” ... and in the “nuclear strike” EPR-projectile the “armor-piercing core” ... just different! Already developed 120-mm EPR-shells (both self-aiming and homing ...), designed to destroy armored objects when flying (!), Both from the top and from the side! In relation to Russian realities, it is possible to "imagine" a nuclear strike 125 mm projectile guided by a laser beam ("telecontrolled"!) To destroy armored objects from the side and from the top! Do not forget about the cumulative 120 mm tank / anti-tank shells that successfully hit armored objects from the top! (As an example, we can cite KSTAM-I / II, both in the cumulative and in the "nuclear strike" versions ...) If, however, "toasts" for the increase caliber (over 125 mm), it is not necessary to immediately rush to 152 mm! After all, there are 130 mm, 135 mm, 140 mm on the way ...! (How- I read that when choosing a caliber for a T-95 tank’s tank gun, all these calibers were considered ...) And I don’t think it’s crazy to return to a “missile tank” (instead of a cannon, a missile launcher ...)! Those problems that could not be resolved in the 60s of the last century, can be resolved "now" or "soon" ...
    1. garri-lin April 2 2020 11: 29 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The missile tank is just from the 60s in service. Just for the defeat of most targets on the battlefield, there is enough RP. Cheap and cheerful. A couple of rockets. In case of an encounter with an enemy tank. As for me, BOPS is a dead end. KAZ will soon reset their effectiveness. A smart rocket is much better.
      1. _Ugene_ April 4 2020 16: 58 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        As for me, BOPS is a dead end. KAZ will soon reset their effectiveness. A smart rocket is much better.
        any KAZ rocket is much easier to cope with than a bops, a rocket can be destroyed with shrapnel, the bops have too much strength, it needs to be hit to kill, which is much more difficult
        1. garri-lin April 4 2020 19: 17 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          A smart and expensive missile can be equipped with a means to overcome KAZ. You won’t put that in scrap. And along this path is indulged. They are now investing more than usual in the protection of tanks. And in active and in passive and in kaz. It will be as it was with the ships. RCCs, in fact, at one time were the most advanced missiles. It will be the same with ATGMs.
          1. _Ugene_ April 4 2020 22: 23 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            and what are the real ways to overcome KAZ at the moment?
            1. garri-lin April 5 2020 01: 08 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Blind the radars. Accuracy for kaz should be high. Hammer radar and other sensors so that they do not see the rocket or vice versa cause a false positive a little before the rocket flies up. The precharge that will separate from the bird on the approach and will be intercepted by the kaz and expose the aerosol cloud opaque to the kaz sensors. And the warhead itself will perform a maneuver, including speed, so that the kaz could not read the trajectory.
              1. _Ugene_ April 5 2020 11: 02 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                purely theoretically, the kaz can be made to resist all this, the kaz has much fewer restrictions and energy resources are much larger than a small racket, all this has been discussed for a long time, but things aren’t moving further than conversations, while the kaz confidently intercepts all
                1. garri-lin April 5 2020 11: 12 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  So far, kaz is not a panacea. The first generation is exploited. Purely experimental. But the next generation is coming. And it will quite confidently intercept crowbars. Then the tanks will become almost invulnerable. And the time will come for new ATGMs.
                  1. _Ugene_ April 5 2020 11: 24 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    and we don’t have the first generation serial either, as they usually see when they are 20 years behind, then they will start frantically catching up, as with drones
                    1. garri-lin April 5 2020 11: 30 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Serial no. But work is ongoing. And with drones and developments, there wasn’t any. In principle, only Israel has serial work. Experience gained.
      2. Pathos April 9 2020 14: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I want to add during the course of the fighting it turned out that when the HE entered the tank, he deflated all the defenses. All the same, a 125 mm blank weighs seriously. Che with the crew inside is even imagining I'm afraid the panic should be for sure. If Abrash put the PF under the tower, I think the woman can be disabled. Doctrine tanks do not fight tanks. Therefore, in the tank’s tank shell the main shell of the HE, BOPS of 5 pieces, missiles are almost never found, probably because it’s expensive, and the operator must be able to control them. I didn’t hear at the firing range that they would shoot controlled from the barrel.
        1. garri-lin April 9 2020 19: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          PF as well as BOPS will soon be confidently intercepted. Soon the tank will become an expensive but challenging target. Very complicated.
  • smaug78 April 2 2020 09: 48 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Weak article ... Yes, and the author does not know the story.
  • Aleksandr72 April 2 2020 10: 00 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    An article in the "gallop across Europe" style - the author has put together everything that has been repeatedly written about BOPS on the Internet, including and on this site, and stated thesis without developing the topic. But it was still interesting to read. Although at first because of the abundance of "humor" it seemed that the article was written on the day of laughter. But today is April 2. I would like to note that BOPS are needed exclusively for the destruction of armored vehicles of a comparable class. And the current realities tell us that "tanks do not fight tanks." Today, the OFS for tank guns is more in demand. The development and improvement of tank armor-piercing ammunition is needed more in the future.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • voyaka uh April 2 2020 10: 01 New
    • 10
    • 4
    +6
    Uranium scrap has a useful self-sharpening feature along the way
    breaking through steel. But tungsten is not.
    For this reason, Americans prefer uranium.
    During the Iraq war of 2003, uranium scraps were found stuck in the back of the engine
    T-72 tanks of the Iraqi National Guard, and the inlet is in the frontal armor of the hull.
    True, these were export variants of the T-72, but passed the "upgrade" in Iraq.
    1. Genry April 2 2020 11: 13 New
      • 3
      • 5
      -2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      uranium crowbars found stuck in the back of the engine
      T-72 tanks

      On fishing heard ???
      1. Threaded screw April 2 2020 14: 13 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        uranium crowbars found stuck in the back of the engine
        T-72 tanks
        On fishing heard ???

        Why do you think this cannot be? The question of distance.
        1. Threaded screw April 2 2020 14: 27 New
          • 0
          • 4
          -4
          Although who needs to be that to poke around in a wrecked tank and look for a full-blown uranium crowbar. Reward radiation sickness. It’s also strange.
          1. bk0010 April 2 2020 20: 31 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            It is from depleted uranium, not a phonite. Harmful, but not radiation hazardous.
    2. Uncle Izya April 2 2020 13: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It seems that at a speed of more than 2 km / s it is written that tungsten already has tungsten denser - 19,25 g / cm3 (1%). It also has a superproperty - a high melting point, 2,6 times higher than that of uranium. Therefore, under conditions when the radioactive “crowbar” begins to flow from colossal temperatures (if any) at the collision site, the tungsten retains its hardness. All other things being equal, the tungsten BOPS loses to the uranium, but at a speed of about two kilometers per second it begins to take its toll. By the way, the new 2A82 gun just spits out BOPS at such speeds. The disadvantage of tungsten is the cost. Advantages - working with it is somewhat easier and more humane in use.
    3. Alf
      Alf April 2 2020 18: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      True, these were export variants of the T-72, but passed the "upgrade" in Iraq.

      I would have upgraded those .. R-17, too, brought the whole world without the participation of the authors, so it was not known what was flying, it was unknown how and where it was not known, and then they declared that the Russian missiles were bad.
  • Stalllker April 2 2020 13: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It is necessary to switch to 200+ mm and the head will not hurt than to shoot, one high-explosive is enough for any purpose)))) "sarcasm"
    1. Alf
      Alf April 2 2020 19: 02 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Stalllker
      It is necessary to switch to 200+ mm and the head will not hurt than to shoot, one high-explosive is enough for any purpose)))) "sarcasm"

      For example, play 203 mm and get this.

      Or you can armor this thunderstorm adversary.

      The brush. laughing
  • Ratmir_Ryazan April 3 2020 11: 41 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Again twenty-five.

    Our BOPS penetrate 550-650 mm of armor, and Abrams in the frontal projection have 900-950 mm of equivalent armor.

    Abrams sew 900 mm of armor, despite the fact that the T-90 has a frontal projection of about 800 mm of armor equivalent.

    Our tankers simply do not have a chance against NATO tanks in a frontal attack, they are fed up with the fact that ours will always succeed in attacking from the side - stupidity.

    You need to do something, change the gun, AZ and ammunition.
  • Graduate engineer April 4 2020 11: 41 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The article as a whole is not bad. The author shows knowledge of some highly specialized issues. But when reading an article, you constantly catch yourself thinking about what, generally speaking, the author specializes in. Who is he, shell, gunner or tank designer? We go further, and judging by the vocabulary used, you understand that it is not a shell, not a gunner, and not a constructor. Inet suggested that a columnist writing on military topics. Relatively speaking for the Technique of Youth. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that. The only question is that the author did not identify any of the problems facing these sectors, where the tone is now set by effective managers, not specialists. As a result, the article turned out for all the good, against all the bad.
  • alexgall2013 April 6 2020 22: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    At the moment of contact with the armor, when enormous temperatures act on the core, uranium scrap can partially lose its hardness. There is such a term: "swim" from the heat. But tungsten at temperatures ...
    - enchanting fabrications about the "spherical horse in a vacuum"!
    A uranium core is much preferable to a tungsten one for the simple reason that uranium has such an ablative shearing property, i.e. when hit in the armor, it "self-sharpenes" which tungsten cannot and simply deforms.
    The Americans in the Persian Gulf war were not shy about using uranium ammunition, their A-10 attack aircraft with 30-mm guns made excellent drushlag from Iraqi tanks
  • Chaldon48 April 8 2020 04: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Interestingly, no one tried to make tanks and infantry fighting vehicles from titanium?
  • Wildgoose April 9 2020 12: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Regarding the situation, artillery and aviation over the battlefield is good, but Again, the situation is that there will be 5-6 tanks maximum per km of front, 1 aircraft per day maximum, and 1 helicopter, and 1-2 batteries and in companies of 30-50 person. And there will be no nuclear weapons at all.
    You need to consider the darkest scenarios. And it remains to fight that the warehouses are lying around for 40 years.
    1. agond 2 June 2020 20: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      If it is not possible to increase the length of the bolt, then you can try to create a composite shell with a composite crowbar inside, that is, one shot is stored in two parts in a conventional loader, but the loading is separate, in the barrel both parts of the crowbar are connected into one piece by pressing into the sleeve at the time of the shot and as a result, you get two times longer BOPS, if you use a pulling driving belt then symmetry - alignment of both halves will be observed.
  • EvilLion 8 June 2020 08: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    That is, a fundamental increase in the kinetic energy of the projectile in the same caliber - is this a new stretch for the author? Well, he used to give out things like that, why be surprised.
  • Boratsagdiev 9 June 2020 13: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    1. A “crowbar” of depleted uranium during penetration of armor has a very useful property - “self-sharpening”.
    2. "Wonderful" uranium dust has terrible consequences for manpower, both the enemy and his own.
    (mercury vapor is most dangerous than mercury in its simplest form).
    3.
    Plus, there is a length limit dictated by the combat laying of the tank itself. Plus, automatic loaders (who have it) also require attention from designers. So that you don’t have to cram unshielded
    - this takes place only in old systems, where everything was designed for certain parameters. In the T-90 and especially the T-14, these restrictions have long been overcome. The Americans do not have an automatic loader, but there are still limitations)
    4.
    why so little?
    - for the partial reason as in paragraph 3.
    In T-72, T-80 the maximum size limit is up to 740-760 mm. Americans have a crowbar of up to 900 with a tail.
    5.
    Abrams of the last modifications in the thickest place of the tower has protection
    - no matter, you shoot at the top of the frontal sheet and ricochet under the tower with all that it implies or into the area of ​​the driver.
    PS "Renmetall" at one time remarkably modernized the old 105-mm guns with an increase in the charging chamber. From 120-125 mm you can do the same trick.
    “gunsmiths” often use a trick - they take a bullet of the “old caliber” and a cartridge case from another cartridge, with a larger “weight of gunpowder”.