Military Review

Large caliber: Europeans challenge a Russian tank at the Armata base

102

Revolution did not happen



The growing threat from Russia and China, developing fundamentally new Tanks, clearly showed that Western tank builders will not be able to rest on their laurels. The appearance of the T-14 tank based on the Armata tracked platform created for Europe and the United States the risk of repeating the 60s, when the birth of the T-64 tank (with all the disadvantages of this vehicle) automatically made Western tanks obsolete.

For the sake of fairness, we note that some steps towards increasing the capabilities of NATO countries have already taken. The German army received the first tank last year Leopard 2A7V... And this year, for the first time, the US ground forces received production tanks M1A2 SEP V3 Abrams. In the first case, the emphasis is on the balance of firepower, mobility and security. And the modernized Abrams, among other things, received the Israeli Trophy active protection complex, capable of intercepting enemy ammunition using radar and striking elements.


At the same time, the West clearly understands that this is not enough. Neither the Leopard 2A7V nor even the M1A2 SEP V3 Abrams revolutionized tank building and offered nothing that we would not have seen on other tanks in one form or another. Now European and American tanks can still withstand existing threats, however, we repeat, this situation may change in the foreseeable future. A fundamentally new solution is needed.

Knight of the "fourth reich"


One of the possible responses to the "eastern threat" was the development of new guns of increased caliber. Recently, the German concern Rheinmetall presented a demonstration video of its new development, a 130 mm tank gun with the symbol Next Generation 130.

Development has been known for a long time. A demonstration sample was presented back in 2016 during the Eurosatory international defense exhibition. The total mass of the gun is approximately 3000 kilograms, the barrel length is 6,6 meters. According to the developers, the new gun will have 50% more power than the 120mm / 55 Rheinmetall L55 tank gun, which the Leopard 2 is equipped with. The gun has a vertical wedge breechblock, an electric firing mechanism and a larger chamber. The barrel was equipped with a heat-insulating casing and a barrel bend control system. According to the bmpd blog, two types of promising unitary shots will be used for shooting. The first is an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile (APFSDS) with an elongated tungsten core and a partially combustible sleeve using a new type of propellant charge. The second is a multipurpose high-explosive fragmentation projectile with programmable air detonation (HE ABM), which is created on the basis of a similar 120-mm DM11 projectile.


Experts expected that the 130-mm gun would be installed on the Leopard 2 tank: some major media outlets even wrote after the demonstration that it was a German vehicle. In fact, the British Challenger 2 tank participated in the tests.


Here, however, one nuance should be noted: the word "British" can already be used only conditionally. Last year, the German concern Rheinmetall acquired 55 percent of the shares of BAE Systems, which produces Challenger 2 tanks. Or rather, produced: back in May 2009, BAE Systems announced that it was curtailing the production of tanks due to extremely limited demand. Apart from Britain, only Oman ordered the tank: 18 units in 1993 and 20 more in 1997. The total number of Challengers 2 built is just over 400 vehicles. A modest figure, it should be noted. One way or another, we can state the end of British tank building, at least in the form in which it existed before.

The recent trials of a 130mm tank gun can be seen as an attempt by Rheinmetall and BAE to revive the stalled Challenger tank fleet modernization program. Recall that the British Ministry of Defense had high hopes for the Challenger 2 Life Extension Program (CR2 LEP), aimed at dramatically increasing the combat capabilities of the tank. However, last year it became known that the UK Department of Defense had suspended the tender.


It is also pertinent to recall that in 2019 BAE Systems spoke about a new version of the Challenger, called Black Night and painted black (the functionality of this step is not entirely clear). It can be called "advanced" modernization: one of the improvements should be the installation of an active protection complex. Again, today the prospects for this development in connection with the current economic situation in the UK are dubious.

Together and separately


As for the 130-mm Rheinmetall gun, it is difficult to say anything specific about its prospects now. With a high degree of probability, the future of the gun will directly depend on how the development program of the new-generation Franco-German tank MGCS (Main Ground Combat System) is advanced. For which, it must be assumed, the project was started. Earlier, The Drive noted that, according to the requirement for the MGCS, the gun must be at least 50 percent more effective than the existing 120 mm samples. In general, the fate of the program directly depends on how relations between France and Germany develop. And will the European Union not face challenges that will shake its foundations again?


It is also important to say that the Rheinmetall gun is not the only option for the European tank gun of the future. Last year, the French company Nexter tested a modified Leclerc main battle tank with a 140mm gun. As part of the tests, the vehicle fired 200 successful shots.


According to Nexter, the new gun will be 70 percent more efficient than NATO's existing 120mm tank guns. And with a high degree of probability, it will also be more powerful than the 130mm Rheinmetall gun. In any case, this is a potentially more revolutionary development that could "perfectly" fit into the overall concept of the European tank of the future, which, among other things, should have much more firepower than the Abrams or Leopard equipped with 120mm cannons.

The increase in the firepower of the MBT is being considered not only in the EU countries. Earlier there was information about the possible equipping of the Russian T-14 tank based on the "Armata" with a 152 mm cannon instead of the standard 125-mm 2A82 gun. Against its background, the 130mm Rheinmetall gun also does not look like something potentially advanced. On the other hand, it must be assumed that the installation of a new gun on the T-14 is not a question for the next years. And perhaps not for the next decades. One way or another, specific conclusions about the capabilities of new tank guns can be made after the detailed characteristics of the presented samples are known.
Author:
102 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 10 August 2020 04: 20 New
    -7
    T-14 based on "Armata" with a 152 mm cannon
    I just wanted to sneer at the German 130mm cannon. And she already exists! request
    painted black (the functionality of this step is not entirely clear).
    Black cat, difficult to find in a dark room. belay Night tank? recourse
    main battle tank "Leclerc" with a 140-mm gun
    "What a face, you have Sharapov." repeat
    1. English tarantas
      English tarantas 10 August 2020 09: 47 New
      -1
      Black cat

      Advertising is called, well, you sho, you do not perceive anything besides green tanks.
      What a face, you have Sharapov

      Oh, come on, Leclair is handsome. And then the ISov schnobel did not stick out.
      1. Romka47
        Romka47 11 August 2020 14: 43 New
        +2
        Oh, come on, Leclair is handsome. And then the ISov schnobel did not stick out.
        The IS is a pretty brutal tank for its time, the IS3 generally looked like from the future, and the leclerc is really "ugly", but here, as they say, "taste and color" as for me, all French tanks are outwardly awkward, which I can't say about the rest, tanks they know how to build.
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas 11 August 2020 21: 11 New
          0
          Alas, I have a diametrically opposite opinion. The IS-2 is crookedly curved, and the IS-3 is beautiful, but without anything unusual. For me, Leclerc looked like the car of the future in his 90s, now he continues, but already on a par with K2. Although, okay, there is no point in rubbing this topic, there is no dispute about the feelings of beauty, since all your tastes are extremely subjective.
          1. Romka47
            Romka47 12 August 2020 09: 19 New
            +1
            they do not argue about the feelings of beauty, since all your tastes are extremely subjective.
            I agree with you hi
        2. Nick
          Nick 16 August 2020 09: 40 New
          0
          Quote: Romka47
          Oh, come on, Leclair is handsome. And then the ISov schnobel did not stick out.
          The IS is a pretty brutal tank for its time, the IS3 generally looked like from the future, and the leclerc is really "ugly", but here, as they say, "taste and color" as for me, all French tanks are outwardly awkward, which I can't say about the rest, tanks they know how to build.

          Beauty, to put it mildly, is not the most important quality for a tank.
      2. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 18 August 2020 05: 28 New
        0
        Quote: English Tarantas
        Oh, okay to you, Leclair handsome man... And then at the ISs, the snobel did not stick out.
        Especially in profile. Head length = chassis length. ... As Abrasha set the tone, so the "world" thought and rushing.
        Beauty in tanks is not a subjective thing, but an applied one. There is no more beautiful T-90, even in the face, even in profile. However, you know better from the English misunderstanding. hi ISov shnobel hinting at the "pike nose", this was beauty with a capital letter, just complicated.
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas 18 August 2020 14: 55 New
          0
          Isov shnobel hinting at the "pike nose", that was the beauty with a capital letter, just complicated.

          I'll start with the last sentence. it specifically shows that you didn't understand anything at all. Schnobel - the nose, long and protruding, located in the center of the face is the trunk, and it seems to me that the forehead of the body is not associated with the nose, if only with the jaw or chest. And if you read a little more carefully, you would understand that the "snobel" was about the IS-2. Below, a friend wrote that he did not like all French tanks at all, but who, but the French had enough pike noses.
          thing is not subjective, but applied

          Considering that the tank is not intended to be an object of art, the beauty in it cannot be applied. Also, a person who has served on this or that tank will be convinced that his tank is beautiful. And if you consider the very concept of beauty to be an objective thing, then you can talk to a psychologist, or just finish school.
          There is no more beautiful T-90, even in front, even in profile

          T-80U, how do you like this proposal?
          Head length = chassis length. ... As Abrasha set the tone, so the "world" thought and rushing.

          For a start, no, the T-90MS also has an elongated tower, and this is due to the placement of the BC in the rear of the tower, this decision is already 80 years old, for sure, the same T-34-85, Abrams has nothing to do with it, the world thought "pearl" long before him.
          Head length = chassis length

          Well, to the question of subjectivity: I just like this.
    2. Nick
      Nick 16 August 2020 09: 32 New
      0
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Black cat, difficult to find in a dark room.

      Yes, yes, it is especially difficult to search when the cat is not there. wink
    3. rotkiv04
      rotkiv04 17 August 2020 18: 24 New
      0
      Well, you can sneer in the other direction, but you already have a T-14?
  2. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 10 August 2020 04: 22 New
    +5
    For a 130 mm gun, the line of ammunition needs to be re-prepared, and this is also a matter of more than one year ... big plans.
    1. Uncle Izya
      Uncle Izya 10 August 2020 07: 15 New
      -2
      So it seems like 5 mm between a 125 mm gun and a 130 mm is not much more, it's better than 140 mm
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 10 August 2020 17: 14 New
        +4
        Quote: Uncle Izya
        So it seems like 5 mm between a 125 mm gun and a 130 mm is not much more, it's better than 140 mm

        So after all, they change not 125 to 130, but 120mm to 130mm - for them the difference is significant, especially since it overlaps our armature 2A82 in terms of power.
        The difference in the size of ammunition 120 and 130mm
        1. Uncle Izya
          Uncle Izya 10 August 2020 18: 38 New
          -6
          I compared with Russian guns that there will be no overweight in the caliber
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 12 August 2020 16: 47 New
            -1
            The preponderance will be. The breech of the gun is even larger, the heavier and longer OBPS. Increase from 30 to 50% in the energy sector. And for 140 mm - 70-100%.
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 12 August 2020 05: 38 New
        -3
        It's about the details. Ours measure the caliber of the projectile, and they measure the minimum barrel diameter, excluding rifling.
        As a result, 120 and 125 are approximately the same. Their 130mm will be like 135mm. The round is more massive and longer, the chamber of the gun has a larger volume, hence the noticeable increase in power.
        But a reasonable size and weight remains, with a sufficient increase in power (in comparison with 152mm).
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas 12 August 2020 11: 33 New
          +2
          The barrels of the guns are smooth, 120 and 125 mm in this case, it is 120 and 125 mm. And ours measure the caliber by the fields, they are by the grooves, here 5,45 and 5,56 are the same caliber.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 12 August 2020 12: 11 New
            -1
            Forgot about the smoothbore wassat
            But in fact, the power of the 120 and 125 mm cannons is the same, as is the mass of BOPSs.
            1. English tarantas
              English tarantas 12 August 2020 15: 23 New
              0
              + -, does not depend on the caliber. For example, domestic 2a46 are used with AZ built into the body of the tank, therefore, it is impossible to expand the breech for a more powerful ammunition, as well as to increase the projectile. But the NATO Rh 120 L44 has more powerful obps than domestic ones, due to the freedom of development in the given discipline and powder, it gives much more powerful pressure.
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 12 August 2020 16: 44 New
                0
                But the NATO Rh 120 L44 has more powerful obps than domestic ones, due to the freedom of development in the given discipline and powder, giving much more powerful pressure.

                I agree. But the price is manual loading, which only the lazy did not laugh at here.
                1. English tarantas
                  English tarantas 12 August 2020 16: 54 New
                  0
                  It's okay, but there is more space inside. And the four of them are easier to change the caterpillar. Yes, and this cannon is also available in the version with AZ, conveyor in the recess of the tower, there it will be lengthened until it comes out behind the stern.
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 12 August 2020 17: 17 New
                    -1
                    It's okay, but there is more space inside. And the four of them are easier to change the caterpillar.

                    All right good
                    Yes, and this cannon is also available in the version with AZ, conveyor in the recess of the tower, there it will be lengthened until it comes out behind the stern.

                    In Leclerc there is one (but a carousel, EMNIP). And there was an experimental one in "Black Eagle".
                    1. English tarantas
                      English tarantas 14 August 2020 11: 19 New
                      0
                      Also K2 and Type 90, maybe also Type 10, but I don't know about it
    2. English tarantas
      English tarantas 10 August 2020 09: 48 New
      +1
      We need two shells, the OBPS is already there. A high-explosive can also eat, I don't know just, but I think it's not a problem at all to make a CFS for this gun.
  3. rocket757
    rocket757 10 August 2020 05: 13 New
    +6
    A growing threat from Russia and Chinadeveloping fundamentally new tanks, clearly showed that Western tank builders will not be able to rest on their laurels.

    the author, take a closer look with the writing of his .... fantasies, and then the fragile mind and psyche, do not understand correctly.
    I didn't pull it out of context on purpose, but it still didn't work out ah.
  4. Graz
    Graz 10 August 2020 05: 32 New
    -3
    at least to scare NATO members with 152mm tests
    1. foxhound
      foxhound 10 August 2020 06: 04 New
      0
      Well, I do not! Let them first develop a new tank capable of "holding" the 2A82. Further prototypes, trial operation, adjustment of mass production. And when they pump fucking dough on all this, you can put a 152 mm cannon laughing
      1. English tarantas
        English tarantas 10 August 2020 09: 49 New
        +2
        We passed, you can't separate them, at one time they already made tanks with thin armor because of the pointlessness in front of cumulative. It turned out very well, their tanks are fast, but ours still made their way with cumulative weapons.
        1. Jager
          Jager 12 August 2020 18: 57 New
          0
          I'm sorry, what???
          1. English tarantas
            English tarantas 14 August 2020 11: 26 New
            0
            Nothing, I forgive. Google about tanks Amx-30, Leopard 1. The impossibility or reluctance to put heavy multi-layer combined armor caused the stake not on booking but on the mobility of these vehicles.
            1. Quadro
              Quadro 16 August 2020 15: 04 New
              -1
              Quote: English Tarantas
              Nothing, I forgive. Google about tanks Amx-30, Leopard 1. The impossibility or reluctance to put heavy multi-layer combined armor caused the stake not on booking but on the mobility of these vehicles.

              Well, did imaginary mobility help? This is not a tank on a computer where I flew 60 km per hour and won everything, they shouted in a column like everyone else. But the t-55 and t-62 with mounted armor are at war, and these leopards and amkh have already been scrapped. Further build-up of armor by the Germans and the French showed that the rate only on speed is damaging.
              1. English tarantas
                English tarantas 16 August 2020 19: 12 New
                0
                Help? What have you seen the columns? Have you seen that tanks go not only in columns? Do you have combat logs, reports, BZ analyzes? You vkurse that NATO tanks were originally going to defend more, mobile defense heard that? Today the tank is standing there, and an hour later it is flying alone along the highway to another position. March throw, for example, have you heard that? They did, then they considered it rational.
                And what does it have to do with fighting or not. There is another reason, tth has nothing to do with it. It seems to me that the USSR at one time did not sell tanks so much as handed them out almost for nothing, then all sorts of former OVD and the USSR were selling Soviet stocks, despite the fact that it turned out to be good from those countries that did not have and in the near future will not be able to service even existing tanks normally.
                And I did not say that armor is not needed at all, can we read?
                Inability or unwillingness to put heavy multi-layer combined armor
      2. Letun
        Letun 12 August 2020 17: 03 New
        0
        Quote: foxhound
        Further prototypes, trial operation, adjustment of mass production. And when they pump fucking dough on all this, you can put a 152 mm cannon

        As far as I understand, all these Western nonsense, such as "prototypes, trial operation, adjustment of mass production", are not required to install a 152 mm cannon on the Armata? These "well, stupid" tanks will begin to produce new tanks, and we will put 152 mm on our Armata right next day! Hoba! Here it will be a shame for them ...
        1. foxhound
          foxhound 27 August 2020 05: 52 New
          0
          That is how yes ... Almost. The T-14 was originally designed for the installation of 152mm. Anyway, the entire Armata platform was conceived with an emphasis on modularity. So, I'm sure that adjusting the production of the T-14 with 152mm down is not a problem. I think that, if necessary, those already released with a 125mm cannon will be re-equipped if necessary.
    2. Pirate
      Pirate 10 August 2020 14: 26 New
      +2
      Don't waste time on trifles go straight to 500 ml good
    3. Pirate
      Pirate 10 August 2020 14: 33 New
      -1
      They are already scared! laughing
    4. 3danimal
      3danimal 12 August 2020 05: 39 New
      -1
      So there is no it. Threatened 2000 pieces by 2020 "riveted", and things are still there.
  5. sen
    sen 10 August 2020 05: 57 New
    +1
    The German "Tiger" with an 88mm cannon had a higher rate of fire than our IS-2 with a 122mm cannon, which was sometimes decisive in a duel.
    But a tank duel in modern combat is a rarity - the main enemy of a modern tank is aviation, ATGMs and infantry grenade launchers.
    But still, with a tank, a 152-mm cannon is needed for direct fire support of MBT. Something similar happened in the Second World War - tanks and self-propelled guns support.
    1. Postum
      Postum 10 August 2020 14: 26 New
      -2
      And modern 125 mm land mines are not enough in your opinion, there is nothing to chase after Europe. In addition, the 125 mm caliber has not yet exhausted itself, for this only tanks with a conveyor AZ with a turret are needed. We have such a T-90M and there is nothing to fence new wunderwaals.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 10 August 2020 17: 19 New
        +1
        Quote: Postum
        for this only tanks with a conveyor AZ with a tower are needed. We have such a T-90M

        He has no conveyor in the tower.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 10 August 2020 18: 12 New
        +2
        Let's not waste time on trifles and immediately make a robotic assault tank with a 203 mm cannon and a four-track chassis so that modular armor KAZ dynamic protection and several robotic machine-gun turrets can go everywhere
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 12 August 2020 05: 46 New
          -1
          a robotic assault tank with a 203 mm cannon and a four-track chassis so that modular armor KAZ can go everywhere, dynamic protection and several robotic machine gun turrets

          Support. wink good But! At the initial stage. It is necessary to further increase the caliber, up to 256-305mm. There will be a land battleship fellow
          1. ifdru74
            ifdru74 12 August 2020 23: 42 New
            0
            small things, citizens! We need to make a double-barreled tank! The rate of fire is higher and you can load different types of shells into different barrels. And from a fast doublet OFS + cumulative, not a single enemy tank can resist :-)
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 13 August 2020 05: 58 New
              -1
              Continuing the idea: put a nuclear reactor on such a tank (with the possibility of an explosion) and call it "Ravager" fellow
              1. foxhound
                foxhound 27 August 2020 05: 57 New
                +1
                No way! A two-barrel tank with a nuclear reactor cannot be called anything other than "Mammoth"! laughing
            2. foxhound
              foxhound 27 August 2020 05: 56 New
              0
              This is not a bad idea, actually. good
      3. 3danimal
        3danimal 12 August 2020 21: 38 New
        -1
        AZ of the previous type, located at the bottom of the tank. The only one with AZ in the tower was the experienced "Black Eagle". Which remained an experiment.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 12 August 2020 05: 43 New
      -1
      But still, with a tank, a 152-mm cannon is needed for direct fire support of MBT.

      If on the other side the majority will be with 130 and 140mm cannons, then there will not be much advantage.
      The 152mm caliber is highly redundant, the best option would be to create a 135 or 140mm cannon.
      1. Jager
        Jager 12 August 2020 19: 03 New
        0
        Do not forget that in addition to the caliber of the gun, the amount of ammunition and their weight are also important.
        Why did the SU-100 have "cartridges", and the IS-2 had separate-case? Just due to the fact that not every loader can carry a 122-mm cartridge from the ammunition rack to the breech, but on the move, at a high pace and off-road, this is generally unrealistic.
    3. Jager
      Jager 12 August 2020 18: 58 New
      0
      Again they compared warm with soft - "Tiger" and IS-2.
  6. gregor6549
    gregor6549 10 August 2020 06: 13 New
    +6
    I was always alarmed by the phrase about the revolution in such a matter as tank building. Tanks in most leading countries are developing along an evolutionary path. At the same time, the developers and bunnies of tanks are trying to give the tank some kind of new qualities while maintaining the ability of tanks to perform their assigned tasks at any given time.
    Years of experience in the development of tanks both in the USSR / Russia and in the West showed that the pursuit of revolutionary technical solutions usually leads to the fact that no revolutionary solutions are obtained within a given time frame and within existing budgets, and tanks that have no analogues in the world take their a legitimate and predictable place in museums. And the troops continue to fight in something simpler and not at all revolutionary.
    By the way, problems with the Armata are also not least caused by the desire for rrrevolution in tank building. Result: Armata has not yet been produced in worthy quantities and Russian tankers are still "riding" on machines created in the USSR and to some extent modernized by the introduction of a limited number of new computers and systems. The same is happening in the West: instead of rr-revolution, continuous evolution. And this applies not only to tanks, but in general to all weapons systems and military equipment.
    1. Volder
      Volder 10 August 2020 07: 38 New
      -2
      Quote: gregor6549
      "unmatched in the world" tanks take their rightful and predictable place in museums. ... Instead of revolution, continuous evolution. And this applies not only to tanks, but in general to all weapons systems and military equipment.
      You contradict yourself. Talking about the fact that unparalleled tanks are taking place in museums, you admit that Armata is produced and enters the troops for trial operation. Aramata is a vivid example of a revolution that will eventually acquire an unmanned regime. You are also lying about the fact that instead of revolution, there is always evolution in weapons. Apparently, in your understanding, the Belgorod nuclear submarine with the Poseidon on board is not a revolution in the submarine fleet. And hypersonic missiles from "Putin's cartoons", some of which are already in service, are also nonsense, pulling only on evolution. I am already silent about electronic warfare systems and systems based on new physical principles, which are now being actively developed ...
      1. Hagen
        Hagen 10 August 2020 08: 52 New
        +1
        Quote: Volder
        Aramata is a vivid example of a revolution that will acquire an unmanned mode in the future

        The Armata is, by and large, revolutionary compared to the T-62. AZ / MZ became an evolutionary step. After that, the creation of an uninhabited combat module became the next evolutionary step. And after the control of all systems of the tank switches to an electric machine method, mainly traffic control, the creation of an unmanned tank will be a natural step forward.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 10 August 2020 17: 27 New
          +1
          Quote: Hagen
          a natural step forward would be the creation of an unmanned tank.

          Unmanned tanks should be made of those that go for write-off. Moreover, we have already tested a tank based on the T-72.
          1. Hagen
            Hagen 10 August 2020 18: 20 New
            -1
            Quote: Bad_gr
            Unmanned tanks should be made of those that go for write-off.

            Making a drone from an old tank? It is hardly possible ... All the functions of the machine must be digitalized. In Armata, the traffic control system needs to be digitized. In the old one, you also need a gunner-operator .... Is it worth the candle? Sometimes it's cheaper to build a new one than to renovate / modernize the old one. This question can only be answered by the project. I don’t think that someone in the military department has competence in the design of combat vehicles in the scope of an expert, especially in assessing the cost of the project.
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 10 August 2020 18: 33 New
              0
              Quote: Hagen
              Making a drone from an old tank?

              https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/5d517d189a7947cf83c96e5e
              https://22century.ru/military/70367
              http://omskregion.info/news/61921-uvz_razrabatvaet_tank_robot_na_baze_modernizirovan/
              1. Hagen
                Hagen 10 August 2020 19: 05 New
                0
                Interesting projects. However, robots based on the T-72 are not decommissioned vehicles at all. These are quite new machines, initially robotic in production.
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 10 August 2020 07: 58 New
      +2
      Quote: gregor6549
      I was always alarmed by the phrase about the revolution in such a matter as tank building. Tanks in most leading countries are developing along an evolutionary path.

      Well .... by and large ... it's hard to argue! We love to rush with "revolutionary" phrases! And there were revolutions .... one, two ... and it got out of hand! Although, and here .... "Grandma said in two ..."! At the beginning of the 20th century, armored vehicles appeared .... and in WW1 tanks appeared ... The appearance of tanks ... is it a revolution or what? Compared to armored vehicles ... maybe! Although, from a different reasoning, than armored vehicles are not a revolution? There were none, and "suddenly" appeared! And at the same time, we are presented with "mid-century" wigwams of a certain Leni da Vinci, in which historians have seen armored cars and tanks in "one bottle" .... "2 in 1"! It turns out that the military people have long dreamed about it! About tanks, armored cars! Duc, what kind of revolution is this? Some tovarischi call the appearance of the Renault armored vehicle revolutionary ... Well ... we have to admit that this is the ancestor of all modern tanks! Well, as there were once Pithecanthropus, Australopithecines, Neanderthals ... and he appeared, Cro-Magnon, who became the ancestor of modern people, all Homo sapiens and under-Sapiens too ... So these Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons are revolution or evolution? Renault versus Schneider - revolution or evolution? Let's trace the history of tank building ... Whatever one may say, but all the tanks adopted for service from the FT-17 to the present day are the continuous evolutionary development of the FT-17! Or "Armata" ... what is revolutionary here? All the same ! Tower, hull, armor, tracks ....! An uninhabited tower? The crew in the "armored capsule"? Or, "fallback" - mounting a gun without a turret on a rotating platform? But this was reported by articles published in the journal "Foreign Military Review" somewhere, in the 80s of the last century! (who at that time was a regular reader of the ZVO, he will confirm my words ...) An uninhabited tower, a crew in an armored capsule - this is a consequence of the long-term combat experience of using tanks in military events! In general ... according to Pushkin: "And experience, the son of difficult mistakes ..."! So, is the revolution, nevertheless, or evolution reigns supreme in the world of tank building?
      1. Volder
        Volder 10 August 2020 09: 18 New
        -1
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        An uninhabited tower, a crew in an armored capsule - this is a consequence of the long-term combat experience of using tanks in military events!
        Evolution is modernization. And a revolution is the development of a new machine with design solutions that are not embodied in the operated machines of their own country and all other states. Moreover, such decisions should radically change the concept of the tank layout, but so that after that the tank remains a tank, and does not turn into another type of military equipment. By the way, the appearance of stealth planes is also a revolution.
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas 10 August 2020 09: 55 New
          +6
          And a revolution is the development of a new machine with design solutions that are not embodied in the operated machines of their own country and all other states.

          So what does Armata have to do with your "revolution"? Is there something new and outlandish in it that the world has never seen, or even used?
          1. Volder
            Volder 10 August 2020 10: 44 New
            -2
            Quote: English Tarantas
            So what does Armata have to do with your "revolution"? Is there something new and outlandish in it that the world has never seen, or even used?
            Find T-14 in Wikipedia - it says there. It's not about something the world has never seen. We are talking about the properties of a tank entering the troops for operation in a small series. That is, NOT in piece prototypes and NOT in a museum.
            1. English tarantas
              English tarantas 10 August 2020 14: 31 New
              +2
              Find T-14 in Wikipedia - it says there

              It is written under the fence, I also have authority.
              It's about the properties of the tank

              There are no supernatural properties.
              NOT in piece prototypes

              Hmm, how many Armat did they make there? 20? Let me remind you that trial operation implies that at the end of this operation, these machines will need serious repairs. And an experimental batch at the stage of trial operation is far from a ready-made machine and in general it is not a fact that it will go into service. Let us also recall the pace of construction of these experimental batches. And I remind you that the tank is not nuclear weapons, it is quite a consumable machine, therefore a lot of them are required, the plane does not see the difference between the T-54 and T-14
              1. Volder
                Volder 17 August 2020 11: 11 New
                0
                Quote: English Tarantas
                There are no supernatural properties.
                Supernatural properties are not required for the revolution.
                How many Armata were made there? 20?
                But they did the same. And they continue to do so. Not to a museum or an exhibition, but to the troops! It's not about the prototype, and not about piece copies. It's about a small series. In conditions when we have a lot of Soviet, but modernized tanks, it is more rational to slow down the rush. The fact that there is no mass replacement for Armata does NOT make the army weaker. After all, other countries also have no analogues of Armata.
                ... a pilot batch at the trial operation stage is far from a finished machine.
                This is a very close finished car, even now into battle.
                and generally not the fact that it will go into service.
                There are no prerequisites for abandoning Armata. And the financial component only shifts the timing to the right. The tank has been created - and this is a fact. The matter remains small ...
                the tank is not nuclear weapons, it is quite a consumable machine, therefore a lot of them are required, the plane does not see the difference between the T-54 and T-14
                Russia has a lot of tanks. And they will not be left alone with enemy aircraft. The tanks are put into action after the sky has been cleared with the help of fighters and S-400s.
                1. English tarantas
                  English tarantas 17 August 2020 13: 46 New
                  -1
                  Supernatural properties are not required for the revolution.

                  The very word revolution means a sharp and radical turn in the development of events in a different direction.
                  Small batch

                  An experienced batch, at the moment there is no conveyor line standing and waiting for the armats to go from it
                  After all, other countries also have no analogues of Armata.

                  Any modern tank, the same T-90 Breakthrough 3 (where it broke for the third time)
                  This is a very close finished car, even now into battle.

                  A tractor with a weaved cannon and armor-type sheets went into battle. And yes, the car is close to the finished one, but the Boxer was also almost ready, and his fate, alas, is to be a museum exhibit.
                  There are no prerequisites for abandoning Armata. And the financial component

                  Pfff, the same financial component is a prerequisite for failure. In general, there are a lot of reasons to refuse, starting with the same "revolutionary" machine.
                  And they will not be left alone with enemy aircraft. The tanks are put into action after the sky has been cleared with the help of fighters and S-400s.

                  Well, well, the war is proceeding according to the scenario we had previously thought out. Something and air defense breaks through, and tanks are torn in batches ...
                  1. Volder
                    Volder 18 August 2020 08: 54 New
                    -1
                    Quote: English Tarantas
                    The very word revolution means a sharp and radical turn in the development of events in a different direction.
                    Not necessarily in the other direction. Following your logic, there have never been revolutions in tank building, aircraft building, shipbuilding, automotive, etc. Indeed, in the event of a revolution, instead of a tank, a completely different machine should have turned out, and the tank should have been abandoned altogether. Instead of an airplane, it was supposed to be a "flying saucer", and the airplane was to be written off to a museum. Instead of a road car, a flying car. Instead of ships - FIG knows which "quad". You are confusing revolution with a BRANCH in evolution: in addition to the tank, another branch has appeared - an infantry support combat vehicle; in addition to airplanes - converters and drones; besides cars - motorcycles. In addition to ships - submarines and ekranoplanes.
                    Experimental batch
                    A batch is a small batch. In addition, the Ministry of Defense has already ordered 100 units. Armata.
                    Any modern tank
                    is NOT an analogue of Armata.
                    But Boxer was also almost ready, and his destiny, alas, was to be a museum exhibit.
                    Armata will NOT be a museum piece, because she ALREADY went to the troops for exploitation. But you may not believe this and hopefully wait for the failure of the trial operation (after which they will not eliminate the comments and simply close the multi-billion dollar project).
                    In general, there are a lot of reasons to refuse, starting with the same "revolutionary" machine.
                    Revolutionary is NOT a disadvantage, but rather an advantage. There is NO reason to refuse. Lack of funds is not a reason for refusal, but just a shift to the right. Plus there was time to improve the project - equip the UAV, replace the cannon with a more powerful one, introduce unmanned remote control (robotize), etc.
                    Something and air defense breaks through, and tanks are torn in batches ...
                    NOT Russian.
        2. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 10 August 2020 11: 04 New
          0
          Quote: Volder
          Evolution is modernization. And revolution is the development of a new machine

          WW1 tanks ..:. "Marks", "Schneider", "Saint-Chamon" and, finally, FT-17! Different layouts, different concepts ... But, at that time, it seems, no one declared the appearance of the FT-17 "revolutionary"! This was taken calmly as another evolutionary step in the development of armored vehicles! (Like, someone loves "Krakow" sausage, and someone loves pork cartilage!)
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 10 August 2020 17: 31 New
            -1
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            But, at that time, it seems, no one declared the appearance of the FT-17 a "revolutionary phenomenon"!

            But the Leopard was announced:
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 10 August 2020 17: 55 New
              -1
              Quote: Bad_gr
              But, at that time, it seems, no one declared the appearance of the FT-17 a "revolutionary phenomenon"!

              But Lopard announced:

              Well, there are many "sensations" written on the fences too!
      2. Romka47
        Romka47 11 August 2020 14: 53 New
        0
        I liked your reasoning good
  7. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 10 August 2020 07: 44 New
    +3
    Without the United States, no one will accept the new standard for a tank gun. This is a change in the level of NATO. There is a need for this - NO. The modern gun Rm L55 meets all NATO requirements for penetrating the armor of Soviet and Russian tanks. While they shoot us. There will be a massive 2a82 125mm, which will be installed on the T90, then the situation will be equal.
    1. English tarantas
      English tarantas 10 August 2020 09: 43 New
      +1
      Without the United States they have already accepted, the British and Europeans are doing as they wish. The Challenger shoots from his English rifled cannon and the shells are separately loaded. And European machine guns shoot cartridges that are pointless to stick into the M16
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 10 August 2020 10: 00 New
        0
        And when the shells run out ... as in Libya, what will they do?
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas 10 August 2020 10: 07 New
          0
          Who are they? A few hundred Challengers won't be a critical loss. And the European shooter eats American cartridges.
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 10 August 2020 17: 50 New
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Without the United States, no one will accept the new standard for a tank gun. This is a NATO level change

      Yes, sho you say !? How can you explain the fact that the American Abrams are equipped with a 120 mm L44 cannon, and the latest Leopard 2 modifications are equipped with a 120 mm L55 cannon? Moreover, shells from the L55 cannot be fired from the L44 cannons! Isn't it a change in the "NATO level"?
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 10 August 2020 18: 18 New
        0
        On the contrary, you can shoot ...
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 10 August 2020 20: 55 New
          0
          Quote: Zaurbek
          On the contrary, you can shoot ..

          Perhaps ... Perhaps I was let down by an old article, the data of which I brought from memory! The article came across to me soon after the first reports about the Rh L / 55 cannon appeared; that is, a very, very long time ago, but I remember well a fragment where it was said that the shells developed for the L55 cannot be used for the L44 cannon, as they may not withstand the recoil devices ! This fragment came to me by accident!
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 10 August 2020 23: 20 New
            0
            There the difference is about the same as in 2a46 and 2a82 .... 125mm
  8. Free wind
    Free wind 10 August 2020 07: 52 New
    +3
    For mentioning the Reich, the author in Germany may be fined a couple of thousand euros. When they began to develop the 130-140 mm cannon, there was no Armata in the project either. Tested on some tanks for a long time, while looking for a middle ground.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 10 August 2020 10: 01 New
      0
      They are looking for the tank not to be much altered and to raise the power.
  9. English tarantas
    English tarantas 10 August 2020 09: 40 New
    0
    Huh, that's funny. A few days ago, just an informative article was published that the German company delivered a new gun to Challenger 2 during the modernization work. And, given that the same company is engaged in a promising tank, a new gun may appear on it (if the French are not against it). And then an article comes out about nothing, about: "here they are doing there, and we have Armata (!)". Again bytes, as if I’m flipping through VK, why is this all, your Armata is tired, well, who’s interested in this?
    did not become a revolution in tank building and did not offer anything that we would not have seen on other tanks in one form or another

    Just like the notorious T-14, as if a modern OBPS would not fly into your capsule of your armor, as if tanks for 30 years or more did not contain electronics like a good apartment, as if the T-14 "tower" was protected from the same OBPS. No, and the point is to write all these articles with subtext, pronounced voice, God forgive me, Zadoronova: "well, fools, they are trying to do something there, but we have no analogs"
  10. garri-lin
    garri-lin 10 August 2020 10: 00 New
    +1
    In fact, all this increase in caliber is an attempt to drive the heavier crowbar to a higher speed. I wonder why they don't try to do this in the old caliber, playing with the volume of the chamber, the energy content of the powder and the strength of the barrel.
  11. Operator
    Operator 10 August 2020 11: 25 New
    0
    The main feature of the German 130-mm gun is that the linear length of its barrel does not exceed 120 meters of the 6,6-mm gun, i.e. the length in calibers of the first gun is shorter than that of the second. Therefore, to maintain the same efficiency of combustion of gunpowder, it is required to use a faster-burning charge and a more durable steel barrel that can withstand increased pressure.

    The weight of the 130-mm gun barrel can be reduced by winding carbon fiber like the MCS tank gun, the 1,5 times increased recoil is compensated by a muzzle brake with a moderator.

    In order not to bother with new propelling charges, steel grades, composite barrel structures and muzzle devices, it is enough to switch to guided active-reactive projectiles of 150-160 mm caliber, fired from a low ballistic weapon and accelerated on a trajectory using a rocket engine.
    1. Baron pardus
      Baron pardus 24 August 2020 18: 53 New
      0
      We tried it, it turned out to be complete garbage. Twice. Sheridan with 152mm pistol / PU for Shilell ATGMs, and M60A2 with it. It was believed that to support the infantry, the PF of 152mm would work and ATGMs for tanks. It didn't work. The cost of an ATGM is much higher than the cost of a BOPSik.
      1. Operator
        Operator 24 August 2020 21: 22 New
        +2
        ATGM and active-rocket projectile are different things. There were no ARSs in the ammunition load of the 152-mm Sheridan gun.
  12. Dart
    Dart 10 August 2020 13: 08 New
    0
    Quote: Operator
    active-reactive shells of caliber 150-160 mm, fired from a low ballistic weapon

    the cost of a shot against conventional ammunition?
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 11 August 2020 10: 23 New
      0
      Simpler, like on Sheridan 155mm barrel (or on BMP-3 - 100mm) - PU for 155mm ATGM and as a low ballistic weapon with a powerful 155mm HE.
  13. place
    place 10 August 2020 18: 06 New
    +1
    And we will not have any "Armata"! No money ....... How great did we get them?
  14. Berg berg
    Berg berg 10 August 2020 19: 09 New
    -1
    What a challenge if Armata, as previously stated, has the ability to change to 152 mm caliber.
    1. cat Rusich
      cat Rusich 10 August 2020 23: 10 New
      -1
      Vyacheslav, cannon 2A83, 152mm caliber, length up to 52 calibers - is in the project, in test copies, and where is it on the T-14 Armata? or being tested ... While they are doing it with the "old" 125mm 2A82, it just won't work, you will need a new automatic loader. Can you imagine how long it will take to make guns, automatic loaders ... and when will the shells be made? The Germans are already testing a new 130mm gun on tanks, they can start putting 140mm on a tank, it will turn out - NATO will switch to a new caliber quite quickly, and we (Russia) again, like in 1943 on the Kursk Bulge, will face the fact of new "German tanks", which can hit our tanks from afar, and again only on the side ...
      1. Berg berg
        Berg berg 13 August 2020 21: 52 New
        0
        So it is written about that that in the West they only dream of projects, we already have in the metal and we have all the groundwork, if only such a caliber is needed!
        1. cat Rusich
          cat Rusich 13 August 2020 22: 14 New
          -1
          About the tank gun of 140mm caliber - NPz K-140, Rheinmetall made 6 prototypes, but there was no further progress. The 130mm tank gun has already been described in this article. Do you need such a caliber? - 130-140-152mm is needed for BOPS - the thicker and longer the scrap, the worse it is for the enemy tank ... an increase in caliber increases the diameter of the cumulative funnel for ATGM fired from a tank gun - the thickness of the penetrated armor of the "potential enemy" increases. Direct comparison with WWII - the Germans started with the T-2 (T-1 only machine gun) and the 20mm KwK 30 cannon, and ended the T-6 Tiger-2 and 88mm-KwK 43.
          1. Berg berg
            Berg berg 14 August 2020 13: 55 New
            0
            To put such a gun, you need to increase the mass of the tank! Strengthen the tower or make it cast with the hull! And they themselves will burn no worse than the previous ones, but are such 70-ton machines needed?
            1. cat Rusich
              cat Rusich 14 August 2020 19: 50 New
              -1
              Vyacheslav, what is the dispute about? - why did the T-34-76 become the T-34-85? Or is it about today? The Germans want 130mm - they put it and increase the power by 50%, but they want to put NPz K-140 and increase the power by 70% ... And we (Russia) sit and wait ... but what are we waiting for? Old BOPS "Mango" does not penetrate (in the forehead) new Leopards, but 130mm BOPS Leopard from what distance will penetrate T-72, T-90? In warehouses there are stocks of "Mango" since the times of the USSR, "tank generals" expect to use old "Mango" and do not change the caliber on the "Armata" (I "think so"). There are new 125mm BOPS "Vacuum-1" and "Vacuum-2", only T-14 Armata can use them ... can you remind me and the others - how much Armata will be ...
  15. Vlad5307
    Vlad5307 11 August 2020 21: 38 New
    +2
    The pursuit of large cannons for tanks will naturally run into a significant increase in vehicle weight, a reduction in ammunition carried and the need for even more powerful engines, which also increases the weight of the vehicles. Here the developers will run into another wall. And you can frighten each other with the development of giant weapons until the next crisis (economic). There is always asymmetrical opposition to such a "fool". hi
  16. 7,62h54
    7,62h54 11 August 2020 22: 01 New
    0
    It is no longer interesting to read comparisons of the prototype with the tanks in use.
  17. 3danimal
    3danimal 12 August 2020 05: 32 New
    0
    On the other hand, it must be assumed that the installation of a new gun on the T-14 is not a question for the next years. And perhaps not for the next decades.

    The author is a plus for objectivity.
  18. philosopher
    philosopher 12 August 2020 18: 39 New
    +1
    And why in the west they are frightening with a new 130 mm cannon, while they themselves are intensively developing light tanks? Now all the leading tank-building powers are switching to the concept of light, fast and highly mobile tanks, the ultimate armament of which will be the good old L7, or even small-caliber autocannons (like the Bushmaster from 25 to 40 mm).
    It may suddenly happen that our traditionally lightest MBT will become (or rather, remain) the heaviest. And the west will put its 130..140 mm guns on self-propelled guns - "tank destroyers". Indeed, at this stage of the struggle between the projectile and the armor, the lead is by a large margin behind the projectile, since not a single tank in the world holds the enemy's current projectile into the side, at best from small course angles and head-on, and with 130 mm of the gun, this situation becomes quite sad ...
    1. DDZ57
      DDZ57 Yesterday, 07: 11 New
      0
      Indeed, at this stage of the struggle between the projectile and the armor, the lead is by a large margin behind the projectile, since not a single tank in the world holds the enemy's current projectile on board, at best from small course angles and head-on, and with 130 mm of the gun this situation becomes quite sad
      .

      For the T-72, T-80, T-90 in the forehead with modern Western BOPS, it is already quite sad now.
      The situation will be like in 1941. or like Desert Storm.
      1. philosopher
        philosopher Yesterday, 07: 27 New
        0
        The characteristics of the most modern Western BOPSs are leveled by their small numbers in the troops. Should something happen, they will not fight with piecemeal samples of shells and the latest technology, even if ours, albeit Western, but the most massive and often outdated ones. Well, about booking our old tanks, yes, it's sad. Even not the newest types of BOPS will be enough for them above the roof. In light of this, I don’t understand why upgrade to the T-72B3M at all, spending so much money, if the armor is not pumped? "Contact-5" on VLD is just a shame. What prevents the driver from changing the observation device with the lens shifting up and forward, which will allow you to close the "neckline" and close it not with "Contact", but with "Relic"?
        1. DDZ57
          DDZ57 Yesterday, 08: 02 New
          0
          If you know about a mechanic's device, then take a close look at its night performance, he is forty years old, a mechanic sees an African American's ass at night and plus designates itself as an infrared searchlight. There are no infrared spotlights on any western tank. And look at the armored vehicles that are passed off as unparalleled - Octopus, Lotus, Coalition, etc. - everywhere there is an infrared illuminator for a driver-mechanic who is forty years old - which has no analogues in the west, they have a thermal imager for the night and a low-level camera everywhere. There is no rearview camera on the Coalition.
  19. Zum
    Zum 13 September 2020 22: 52 New
    0
    Why waste time on trifles .... let's "cut" 152-millimeter paper into all T-72 and T-90, and at the same time into the T-80 .... here's the picture ....... it's time to think about a new engine .... this is an urgent problem for our tank industry ..... we push the old man down ..... we force it .... we rape .... and the new one "hangs in the air" ....
  20. nnz226
    nnz226 Yesterday, 21: 44 New
    0
    In fact, those who remember the school physics course should not fight for the caliber ("More, more and more!"), But for the speed of the projectile at the exit of the barrel. The Zis-2 with a caliber of 57 mm knocked out the "Fuhrer's cats" much better than the ZiS-3 with a caliber of 76 mm, precisely due to the higher projectile speed ...