Military Review

Armament of promising tanks: cannon or missiles?

81

In the beginning there was a cannon



The main weapons of combat tanks is a cannon. This has been almost always the case, starting, perhaps, since the Second World War (WWII), when the tanks took on an established look, to this day.

The caliber of a tank gun has always been a compromise between the need to defeat enemy tanks at maximum distance, the protection of which was continuously increasing, the volume of ammunition, which decreases with increasing caliber, the ability of the tank design to withstand recoil, and other factors.

Cannons of calibers 37/45 mm - 75/76 mm - 85/88 mm were installed on tanks, guns of calibers 122 mm - 152 mm were installed on anti-tank self-propelled artillery guns. On modern main battle tanks (MBT) cannons of 120/125 mm calibers have become widespread, and more and more often the question is raised that this is not enough. On the Russian T-95 tank (Object 195), it was planned to install a 152 mm gun, it is possible that in time it will be returned to it in the T-14 "Armata" tank project.


Object 195 with 152mm cannon

The likelihood of this increases after the tests of the modernized French MBT "Leclerc", equipped with a 140-mm cannon, and the presentation of the newest German tank gun with a caliber of 130 mm as part of the British-German MBT "Challenger 2".


MBT "Leclerc" with a 140-mm gun from Nexter and MBT "Challenger" with a 130-mm gun Next Generation 130 from Rheinmetall

In a more distant perspective, other types of tank guns are also being considered, in particular, a rail gun (the so-called "reilgan") with a fully electric projectile acceleration, as well as electrothermochemical weapons. If the implemented projects of electrothermochemical guns can most likely still be seen in the foreseeable future, then the reilgun, at best, will be implemented in the version for large surface ships, even a ground platform with full electric propulsion is unlikely to provide the rail gun with the necessary energy.

Rocket fever


The rapid development of missile technology led to the fact that a wide variety of platforms were considered as carriers of missile weapons. The tanks did not escape this fate.

The first and only mass-produced rocket tank with rockets as the main weapons, was the Soviet "Tank Destroyer" IT-1 "Dragon" (Object 150), adopted in 1968. As a weapon, it used anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) 3M7 "Dragon" with semi-automatic guidance (ATGM second generation).


"Tank destroyer" IT-1 "Dragon"

The imperfection of the ATGM of that time predetermined the fate of the IT-1: after three years, all vehicles of this type were removed from service.

In the future, other attempts were made to create missile tanks, in particular, these include the experimental Soviet missile tank "Object 287", in which missile armament in the form of an ATGM 9M15 "Typhoon" was combined with two 73-mm smooth-bore guns 2A25 "Molniya" with active-reactive ammunition PG-15V "Spear". After the completion of the development, "Object 287" was never put into service.


"287 Object"

Ultimately, the idea of ​​a missile tank was embodied in the form of guided weapon systems (CUV) - active reactive guided projectiles launched directly from the barrel of a tank gun, and in self-propelled anti-tank missile systems (SPTRK), implemented on the basis of lightly armored tracked and wheeled chassis.

The disadvantages of the KUV, in which an active-rocket projectile is launched from the barrel of a tank gun, can be attributed to the fact that the dimensions of the rocket-projectile are strictly limited by the caliber and chamber of the gun. Because of this limitation, KUV shells are inferior in armor penetration to most ATGMs of a similar generation. In fact, tank KUVs are not capable of hitting modern tanks in a frontal projection and are only suitable for engaging in less protected side or aft projections.

Armament of promising tanks: cannon or missiles?

Rocket 9M119M "Invar" KUV "Reflex" with armor penetration of about 900 mm is unable to penetrate the frontal armor of most modern tanks

An increase in the caliber of tank guns will increase the armor penetration of active-reactive guided projectiles, making it equal to those of modern ATGMs, but the overall limitations on further modernization will in any case remain.

Created on lightly armored tracked and wheeled chassis, SPTRK have their own advantages and disadvantages. The advantages include their ability to attack tanks and other armored vehicles, as well as stationary targets and low-speed aircraft at a considerable distance, which often excludes the possibility of retaliation by potential targets. On the other hand, the choice of lightly armored carriers as a chassis makes the SPTRK vulnerable to almost all types of weapons, perhaps excluding only light small arms, which cannot be compensated for even with the use of active defense systems (KAZ). You can destroy the SPTRK from rapid-fire small-bore automatic cannon, a hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher (RPG), a large-caliber machine gun. In any projection, modern SPTRKs can be hit by high-explosive (HE) shells and ATGMs.


The most modern Russian SPTRK "Chrysanthemum-S" and "Kornet-T"

You can pay attention to the fact that the SPTRKs work quite "leisurely": the launcher with the missiles moves out smoothly, slowly unfolds. All this is a consequence of the initial design of this type of combat vehicles for working on targets from a long distance. In close combat, this speed of reaction is absolutely unacceptable.


Upgraded ATGM "Chrysanthemum-S"

Thus, now in close combat, tanks with traditional barrel armament are working, for which ATGMs launched from the barrel are far from the main weapon, and SPTRK, which in principle cannot work at the front line.

Tank support combat vehicles (BMPT), in particular, the Russian "Terminator", can be placed in a separate category. However, as we discussed in the article Fire support tanks, BMPT "Terminator" and the cycle of OODA John Boyd, the existing BMPT "Terminator" has practically no advantages in both detection and destruction of tank-hazardous targets, excluding the possibility of working on targets for which large vertical guidance angles are required, but the appearance in the troops of a heavy BMP T-15 based on the Armata platform negates this advantage too. And the presence of only four practically unprotected ATGMs does not turn the BMPT into an SPTRK.


BMPT "Terminator-2"

Cannon and rocket armament: advantages and disadvantages


The only thing that a cannon can do and that a rocket armament cannot do is firing with armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectiles (BOPS) flying out of the barrel at a speed of about 1700 m / s.

As we covered in the article "Prospects for the development of ATGM: hypersound or homing?", the creation of a hypersonic ATGM is a very real task. On the one hand, a hypersonic ATGM will have a "dead zone" with a length of 300-500 meters, which is necessary to accelerate to a speed of about 1500 m / s, on the other hand, an ATGM can reach a much higher speed compared to a BOPS - up to 2200 m / s and to support it in a certain flight segment, that is, it can be assumed that the effective range of a hypersonic ATGM with a kinetic warhead will be several times greater than that of a BOPS.

Of course, a hypersonic ATGM will be much more expensive than a BOPS, although we will return to the question of the cost ratio, but BOPS is a kind of "silver bullet", it makes no sense to use it against any other target other than enemy tanks.


Hypersonic ATGMs will be inferior to BOPS in terms of minimum firing range, but will significantly surpass them in terms of maximum firing range and hitting accuracy

What is the likelihood that on a modern battlefield saturated with reconnaissance equipment, two tanks with modern target detection equipment will collide at a distance of less than 500 meters? What is the likelihood that they will collide at all?

This probability will obviously be small, but still it is. In this case, the cost / efficiency criterion will decide everything: the cost of a tank destroyed by one or two hypersonic ATGMs will still be significantly higher than the cost of one or two ATGMs. And the likelihood of hitting an enemy tank with increasing range will also be higher, since a hypersonic ATGM at a distance of 2000 meters or more will have a higher speed than a BOPS - about 2200 m / s for a hypersonic ATGM versus 1500-1600 m / s for a BOPS, which means , the kinetic energy will also be greater with an equal mass of the warhead. The accuracy will also be higher due to the presence of the ATGM control system. A bonus is the possibility of simultaneous firing of two missiles at one target, which is impossible for a tank gun with BOPS, and can significantly increase the likelihood of overcoming promising KAZ and, accordingly, hitting the target.

As for the destruction of enemy tanks at close range (up to 500 meters), then here, too, various solutions can be implemented in the form of ATGMs or unguided ammunition with two sequentially located cumulative warheads and two additional leading charges designed to penetrate dynamic protection - dimensions of tank ATGM quite allow to implement it.

Or it could be a high-explosive ammunition with a leading shrapnel charge to overcome the KAZ. If we are considering an ammunition for firing at a range of 1-2 kilometers, then its warhead may contain several tens of kilograms of explosives.

The defeat of a tank with a high-explosive charge of this power is likely to lead to its destruction. At the very least, it will be completely immobilized, the external weapons and observation modules will be destroyed, the gun barrel damaged. With a salvo launch of a powerful high-explosive and enhanced cumulative ammunition, with means of overcoming KAZ, the probability of hitting an enemy tank will be even higher.

Another tank ammunition is high-explosive fragmentation shells, including those with the possibility of remote detonation along the trajectory.


Tank fragmentation-beam projectile "Telnik" 3VOF128

Is it possible to implement their equivalent in rocket format? Of course, yes, and with significantly greater efficiency, for example, with a different charge / warhead (CU) ratio, when a small charge and a warhead of increased power are used for firing at a distance of 1-2 kilometers (as we talked about a few paragraphs earlier), and for firing at long ranges, the mass and size of the warhead are reduced in favor of fuel for the jet engine.

Tank cumulative shells are obviously less effective than BOPS, their use is now minimal, if at all advisable. It is possible that an increase in the caliber of a tank gun to 152 mm will increase the effectiveness of cumulative warheads of tank shells, but at best it will only become comparable to that of existing ATGMs.

Finally, guided tank ammunition, as we said earlier, is in any case inferior to ATGM, especially when firing at well-armored and low-speed air targets.

To destroy air targets in a rocket tank, a special ammunition can be allocated, in fact, an anti-aircraft guided missile (SAM), implemented in the standardized dimensions of promising tank ammunition, it will be much more difficult to do this in the projectile form factor.

Thus, the main advantage that a missile tank will have, compared to a tank equipped with a gun, will be the highest versatility, due to the possibility of flexible formation of ammunition for solving various combat missions in different conditions.

Cost


When cannon and rocket armament are compared, it is believed that shells are much cheaper than missiles. This is true, but only partially. Indeed, a hypersonic ATGM will be an order of magnitude more expensive than a BOPS, although BOPS is not cheap. The American BOPS M829A4 in 2014 cost $ 10 with an order volume of 100 rounds. However, the comparison almost never takes into account such a factor as the wear of the gun barrel. For example, the newest 2501A2-82M cannon with a caliber of 1 mm, which is installed on the T-125 tank of the Armata platform, has a barrel resource of about 14-800 rounds, while the 900-mm 152A2 cannon has a barrel resource of only 83 rounds. At the same time, it is unclear whether the barrel resource is declared for BOPS or for some average ammunition load, consisting of different types of shells.

Thus, the cost of the projectile must be increased by the cost of the gun divided by its resource. But that's not all, this will add the cost of replacing the barrel, the cost of transporting the tank to the place of replacement and other related costs that the missile launcher does not have. And this is not counting the fact that in combat conditions the need to replace the barrel actually puts the tank out of action.

In addition, if we make the projectile controllable, then its cost immediately approaches the cost of an ATGM, since the ATGM jet engine itself is not the most expensive part of it. Conversely, if we are talking about unguided rockets, then their cost can be comparable, or be less than that of shells, as an example we can cite rocket-propelled infantry grenade launchers (RPGs) or unguided aviation rockets (NAR, another name is unguided rockets, NURS). And we do not need only guided missiles for a rocket tank. What is the point of wasting a guided projectile on a target located 500 meters away, especially a stationary one? If a person can cope with a hit from an RPG to such a range, although it is not easy, then the guidance system, taking into account weather factors, its own speed and the speed of the target (if it moves), will also cope.


NAR and RPG are examples of inexpensive missile weapons

There is also a compromise option - the creation of simplified guided missile weapons, for example, with the simplest inertial navigation system, capable of providing an increased hit probability compared to completely unguided ammunition.

Another option is to create relatively inexpensive types of guided weapons.

An example is APKWS (Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System) - a modernized version of the American unguided missile HYDRA 70. During the upgrade, the ammunition received a module with a homing head for reflected laser radiation, drives and rotary rudders. The process of upgrading HYDRA 70 to APKWS is as follows: the HYDRA 70 rocket is disassembled into two components (warhead and rocket engine), between which a new block with blades and sensors is screwed in. The cost of such ammunition is about $ 10.


Upgraded to APKWS version NAR HYDRA 70

In Russia, similar ammunition was developed by the STC JSC AMETECH. It was planned to create modifications of the S-5Kor, S-8Kor and S-13Kor, created on the basis of the NAR of 57, 80 and 122 mm calibers, respectively.


NAR in the modification of S-8Kor

Based on the foregoing, it can be assumed that the average cost of destroying a target for a tank equipped with a cannon with ammunition, including BOPS, HE shells with remote detonation and guided shells, will be comparable to the cost of destroying a target with a rocket tank, the ammunition of which will include hypersonic ATGMs, as well as guided and unguided rockets of various types.

Mass and reaction rate


Another important drawback of tank weapons is their mass. For example, the mass of the already mentioned cannons, the 125-mm 2A82-1M and 152-mm 2A83 cannons, is respectively 2700 and 5000 kg, the mass of the newest 130-mm Next Generation 130 cannon from Rheinmetall is 3000 kg. And this is without taking into account the mass of the turret required for its placement, drives and everything else that relates to a tank gun.

In fact, the mass of a gun with a turret can be from a quarter to a third of the mass of the entire tank.

In addition to the fact that this mass could be better used, for example, to enhance armor from all projections of the armored vehicle, there is one more problem.

A distinctive feature of the ground battlefield is its highest dynamism, suddenness of the appearance of threats, the ability to effectively camouflage tank-hazardous targets. Under these conditions, an extremely important parameter is the reaction speed of a combat vehicle and its crew, including the speed of aiming weapons at a target, read: turning the gun / turret.

Article “Armored vehicles against infantry. Who is faster: a tank or an infantryman? ", we have already seen that the rate of turn of the turrets of tanks and other armored vehicles is currently on the order of 30-45 degrees per second, and it will be difficult to increase it, especially taking into account the increase in the caliber and mass of the guns.

On the other hand, existing industrial robots capable of manipulating objects weighing hundreds of kilograms or more have a turn rate of the order of 150-200 degrees per second.

Based on this, in the project of a promising missile tank, the requirement for the creation of a launcher with high angular turning speeds may initially be laid down, which will ensure the aiming of weapons at the target several times faster than a tank equipped with a gun can do.


The speed and precision of the movements of a modern industrial robot. When developing a launcher for lifting and guiding (turning) missiles in a transport and launch container weighing about 100-150 kg, such a number of degrees of freedom will not be required, which will significantly simplify the development

conclusions



A missile tank, which can be implemented using existing technologies, will not be inferior to a tank equipped with a cannon, when solving problems of destroying enemy tanks at a distance of up to 2000 meters, and at a longer range, it is likely to significantly surpass it.

The capabilities of a promising missile tank to defeat other types of targets will be significantly higher due to the more flexible formation of ammunition by guided and unguided missiles of various types.

The average cost of hitting a target for cannon and missile tanks will be comparable, taking into account the limited resource of the barrel of tank guns and the possibility of using guided and unguided missiles of various types and purposes on a missile tank.

On a promising missile tank, the highest reaction rate to a sudden threat can be realized by increasing the speed of targeting weapons compared to the speed of the turret of a tank equipped with a large-caliber cannon.

Rockets supplanted guns on airplanes and surface ships, even on submarines, options were considered for abandoning torpedo tubes in favor of placing torpedoes outside a solid hull (on submarines, this is complicated by the enormous pressure and corrosive environment in which torpedoes should be located outside the solid hull), perhaps it's time to return to missile tank designs, implementing them at a new conceptual and technical level.

We will talk about how a promising missile tank might look like, about the choice of a platform, the composition of ammunition and auxiliary weapons, as well as whether cannon and rocket tanks can and should exist simultaneously in the next article.
Author:
Photos used:
topwar.ru, bmpd.livejournal.com, andrei-bt.livejournal.com
Articles from this series:
Fire support tanks, BMPT "Terminator" and the cycle of OODA John Boyd
Armored vehicles against infantry. Who is faster: a tank or infantry?
Increased situational awareness of armored combat vehicle crews
Ergonomics of workplaces and combat algorithms for promising armored vehicles
Unmanned systems for advanced armored vehicles
Fire support tanks, BMPT "Terminator" and the cycle of OODA John Boyd
Electric tank: prospects for the use of electric propulsion in ground combat equipment
Protecting ground combat equipment: take cover and dodge
Protection of ground combat equipment. There isn’t much armor?
Protection of ground combat equipment. Reinforced frontal or evenly distributed armor protection?
A helicopter against the tank. Standoff more than half a century long
Russian military helicopters and their weapons. History, present and future
Great extinction. Why certain types of weapons may disappear?
Prospects for the development of ATGM: hypersound or homing?
81 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 18 August 2020 05: 14 New
    11
    The resource of 800 rounds for a tank gun is more than enough. Anyway, in peacetime exercises, a tank is fired from an insert. And in a war, a tank simply will not have time to shoot the entire resource of the barrel, the tank is not a self-propelled gun, and it will not be able to hit hundreds of shots from closed positions.
    1. Vasily Evgenievich
      Vasily Evgenievich 18 August 2020 12: 21 New
      +7
      He manages everything. During the day, two ammunition loads were fired, and some three. Either the shells will be lighter than the missiles, it's easier to push them inside. It's not easy to pack these 40 shells inside, but 40 supersonic missiles 125mm ++, yes, horror.
      A typical photo, a typical shooting, a typical tank.
      1. Shopping Mall
        18 August 2020 12: 46 New
        -3
        Quote: Vasily Evgenievich
        He manages everything. During the day, two ammunition loads were fired, and some three. Either the shells will be lighter than the missiles, it's easier to push them inside. It's not easy to pack these 40 shells inside, but 40 supersonic missiles 125mm ++, yes, horror.
        A typical photo, a typical shooting, a typical tank.


        We need a transport-loading vehicle, now this is already the norm - automation and acceleration of ammunition reloading.

        And rockets are often lighter than shells. The projectile must hold the load during acceleration in the barrel, and in the rocket the body can be made of composites. Have you seen the first stage of the SAM from the Tunguska / Pantsir air defense system? When empty, it can be lifted with one hand without effort.
        1. Vasily Evgenievich
          Vasily Evgenievich 18 August 2020 12: 57 New
          +3
          What kind of TZM are we talking about if the tanks are sharpened for action in isolation from the rest of the forces, well, except for a small number of infantry. A projectile made of steel, not because you have to hold the load, but because you need to break a hole in the concrete wall and explode inside, it seems to be a high-explosive first, and then everything else. Estimate the mass of a rocket with fuel, engine and control for such a capable
          1. Shopping Mall
            18 August 2020 13: 24 New
            -1
            Quote: Vasily Evgenievich
            What kind of TZM are we talking about, if the tanks are sharpened for action in isolation from the rest of the forces, well, except for a small number of infantry. A projectile made of steel, not because you have to hold the load, but because you need to break a hole in the concrete wall and explode inside, it seems to be high-explosive first, and then everything else. Estimate the mass of a rocket with fuel, engine and control on such a capable


            60-70 kg. In a rocket of steel, you can only make the warhead itself (the so-called "penetrator"), and not the entire body. Intensive acceleration up to 700-800 m / s is quite realizable at 150-300 meters. The same Losat was accelerated to 1500-2200 m / s at 500 meters. HE shell from the cannon comes out at a speed of 850 m / s.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 18 August 2020 15: 23 New
        +3
        Quote: Vasily Evgenievich
        A typical photo, a typical shooting, a typical tank.

        With only one amendment, this is not a war. More precisely, this is not the kind of war for which rocket tanks are needed.
        This is the establishment of constitutional order, where insurgents armed with a rifle, RPGs and rare ATGMs act as adversaries.
        And the tank here acts as an assault self-propelled gun and an NPP weapon. And not as a means of fighting enemy tanks.
        1. Shopping Mall
          19 August 2020 08: 04 New
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: Vasily Evgenievich
          A typical photo, a typical shooting, a typical tank.

          With only one amendment, this is not a war. More precisely, this is not the kind of war for which rocket tanks are needed.
          This is the establishment of constitutional order, where insurgents armed with a rifle, RPGs and rare ATGMs act as adversaries.
          And the tank here acts as an assault self-propelled gun and an NPP weapon. And not as a means of fighting enemy tanks.


          So the rocket tank will do just fine. Only the ammunition in this case will not be expensive ATGMs, but unguided missiles with HE and thermobaric warheads - by design, something like heavy RPG missiles / grenades.

          Imagine how many explosives can be put into a rocket-grenade of such a tank "RPG" 3 meters long? Not a single projectile will fit - the buildings will be "folded".

          In fact, in this version, the rocket tank will be something like a hybrid of an assault self-propelled gun and a heavy flamethrower system, but working on targets pointwise, and not on areas.
      3. Boratsagdiev
        Boratsagdiev 19 August 2020 14: 16 New
        +2
        Moreover, with a high consumption of ammunition, there is another problem - the price per shot unit.
        A rocket is more expensive than a projectile and you can't shoot everything in a row.
        Although shells can be with cloudy prices (for Zamvolt).
  2. Same lech
    Same lech 18 August 2020 05: 15 New
    +3
    In protracted and close-range battles, of course, the cannon wins ... there is more ammunition and more nomenclature ... and so combining both options are good for destroying the enemy ... in Syria it was clearly visible.
    The enemy is peeking out from around the corner ... you destroy the corner with a shell, the enemy has put up armored vehicles, you hit it with a rocket, etc.
    1. Vasily Evgenievich
      Vasily Evgenievich 18 August 2020 11: 41 New
      +2
      Are there missiles weighing no more than 60 kg that can reliably extinguish a bunker? And are there missiles with the above mass, capable of doing this from a long range with a short flight time, exactly and at the same time cheap? And if we are not just talking about a bunker with an embrasure and infantry (a volume-detonating one will do for this, for example), but about a concrete capital structure with equipment inside. Tanks they mainly fight for such purposes. The cannon has no alternative, here is the caliber, yes, I would like 152mm. winked
      1. Shopping Mall
        18 August 2020 12: 55 New
        0
        Quote: Vasily Evgenievich
        Are there missiles weighing no more than 60 kg that can reliably extinguish a bunker? And are there missiles with the above mass, capable of doing this from a long range with a short flight time, exactly and at the same time cheap? And if we are not just talking about a bunker with an embrasure and infantry (a volume-detonating one will do for this, for example), but about a concrete capital structure with equipment inside. Tanks they mainly fight for such purposes. The cannon has no alternative, here is the caliber, yes, I would like 152mm. winked


        ATGM "Cornet"
        Maximum firing range: Day - 5500 m At night - 3500 m
        Minimum firing range: 100 m
        Control system: semi-automatic, by laser beam
        Rocket Caliber: 152 mm
        Missile length: 1200 mm
        Weight: Transport and launch container with a rocket: 29 kg, Rocket: 26 kg
        Warhead weight: 7 kg
        Warheads: Tandem cumulative: Mass of explosives: 4,6 kg
        Armor penetration beyond DZ: Cornet-D - 1400 mm of homogeneous armor Penetration of concrete monolith: not less than 3000 mm

        Now suppose:
        The length of the rocket is 2,5-3 meters.
        Weight 60-70 kg.
        in the HE version for firing at a distance of up to 2000 meters, the mass of the warhead will be 20-30 kilograms. What HE shell, even 152 mm, can fit that much?

        And in general, options are possible - tandem cumulative with a large over-the-counter action; HE with increased armor penetration (reinforced warhead + higher speed, but less warhead); HE with maximum explosive weight; thermobaric, etc.
        1. Vasily Evgenievich
          Vasily Evgenievich 18 August 2020 13: 06 New
          +2
          What does a big reserve action mean? Will the crew of the tank be disabled? And the shell will bury the infantry squad in a concrete nine-story building. This is what we are talking about. I generally keep quiet about the price.
          1. Shopping Mall
            19 August 2020 08: 06 New
            0
            Quote: Vasily Evgenievich
            What does a big reserve action mean? Will the crew of the tank be disabled? And the shell will bury the infantry squad in a concrete nine-story building. This is what we are talking about. I generally keep quiet about the price.


            And "Bumblebee" will not bury? But what if Bumblebee is 2-3 times bigger than it is now?

            Or the same HE ammunition with 20-30 kg of explosives - yes, it will destroy the floor of a nine-story building ...
            1. ycuce234-san
              ycuce234-san 23 August 2020 20: 56 New
              0
              yes he will destroy the floor of a nine-story building

              It is impossible to destroy cities without measure. Especially, in our cold climate, civilians still have to live in them and businesses serving citizens must rent premises somewhere.
              And to shoot at ordinary buildings (not pillboxes and other bastions) is better from well-forgotten canister shells and heavy grenades made in the tank format with ready-made striking shells and a small amount of explosives in the shell and gunpowder in the cartridge case. Slow heavy grenades will penetrate deep into the building, even through the openings covered with sheets of ordinary steel, and there will be almost no danger to the supporting structures.
        2. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 18 September 2020 00: 41 New
          0
          The topic of cheapness has not been disclosed.
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 18 August 2020 14: 42 New
      -2
      the worst beast is the aircraft carrier. 7x70 t VI
      any missiles and projectiles rest against, WITH ANY AUTOMATION, the will of man, his ability to survive and win.
      We have been analyzing the strange leveling (before the defeat in WWII) of the German technical genius for 75 years.
      the robot will be able to become better than the tanker (with missiles or shells) - THIS IS A MERIT OF THE OPERATOR (human) and developer (human).
      AI will not determine how to fight against Western Europe (its tanks) - it will offer to leave if tanks are "sharpened" against China or Korea
  3. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 18 August 2020 05: 22 New
    +3
    Put on the T 15 a complex of weapons from Chrysanthemum and here is a rocket tank.
    1. Shopping Mall
      18 August 2020 12: 48 New
      0
      Quote: Pessimist22
      Put on the T 15 a complex of weapons from Chrysanthemum and here is a rocket tank.


      Suspected chassis You guessed right hi
  4. sen
    sen 18 August 2020 05: 45 New
    +1
    You need a combined weapon: a cannon and rockets in armored casings on the sides of the tower. Only this armor should not be like that of the “Terminator-2” BMPT, but would protect against at least 30-mm armor-piercing shells and the corresponding armor-resistant covers that open at the time of the shot should be. Guidance of casings with missiles in elevation is necessary. This is important when fighting in the mountains, when shooting at high-rise buildings and for missiles. And the missiles can be different depending on the situation and the task at hand, incl. and missiles.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 18 August 2020 11: 06 New
      +5
      Better universal vertical launchers astern.
      1. Shopping Mall
        18 August 2020 11: 10 New
        +1
        Quote: garri-lin
        Better universal vertical launchers astern.


        There will be no opportunity to use unguided weapons. The length limitation will be stronger than with a horizontal start. Vertical launch rockets are always more complicated and more expensive.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 18 August 2020 11: 27 New
          +3
          Standard tank gun plus a pair, 2 pairs of cool rockets. UVP in the tower on the sides of the breech of the barrel is just perfect but almost impossible to implement.
      2. Oprichnik
        Oprichnik 19 August 2020 01: 13 New
        0
        And the caliber 152 or 160mm with an increased warhead up to 60-70kg
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 19 August 2020 01: 21 New
          +2
          Doctors of Sciences and Academics should think there. We need a new battlefield rocket. Modular. In the simplest modification, cheap and massive. Dear, advanced, smart, with a lot of surprises.
    2. Aag
      Aag 18 August 2020 20: 33 New
      0
      Quote: sen
      You need a combined weapon: a cannon and rockets in armored casings on the sides of the tower. Only this armor should not be like that of the “Terminator-2” BMPT, but would protect against at least 30-mm armor-piercing shells and the corresponding armor-resistant covers that open at the time of the shot should be. Guidance of casings with missiles in elevation is necessary. This is important when fighting in the mountains, when shooting at high-rise buildings and for missiles. And the missiles can be different depending on the situation and the task at hand, incl. and missiles.

      IMHO: it won't work, we'll get more flaws from each of the systems. Maybe then it's better to create combinations at the unit level? For example, a two-cannon tank platoon, .. the rest are missile ... Possible options depending on the task. But, the main thing , -with a single OMS, the ability to exchange information, target designation. (NDA, already a different level) ...
      1. Shopping Mall
        19 August 2020 08: 14 New
        0
        Quote: AAG
        Quote: sen
        You need a combined weapon: a cannon and rockets in armored casings on the sides of the tower. Only this armor should not be like that of the “Terminator-2” BMPT, but would protect against at least 30-mm armor-piercing shells and the corresponding armor-resistant covers that open at the time of the shot should be. Guidance of casings with missiles in elevation is necessary. This is important when fighting in the mountains, when shooting at high-rise buildings and for missiles. And the missiles can be different depending on the situation and the task at hand, incl. and missiles.

        IMHO: it won't work, we'll get more flaws from each of the systems. Maybe then it's better to create combinations at the unit level? For example, a two-cannon tank platoon, .. the rest are missile ... Possible options depending on the task. But, the main thing , -with a single OMS, the ability to exchange information, target designation. (NDA, already a different level) ...


        I agree. I am not calling for the complete abandonment of cannon tanks. I believe that only practice can reveal the optimal ratio of cannon / rocket tanks. I would start with the ratio of 3 cannon to 1 missile tank, and then, according to the test results, it may already be 2 + 2 or 1 + 3 in favor of missile tanks.

        Well, in principle, you can check in combat units of purely rocket tanks with support vehicles (which will be a separate article).

        But it is definitely impossible to completely abandon guns in any scenario, since it is not known where technological progress will lead us.
        1. Aag
          Aag 19 August 2020 12: 10 New
          0
          I do not mind)). We are waiting for a new article.

          ... "we don't know where technological progress will take us." ...
          Here you will have to look at where he will lead the potential enemy, the tasks may change. hi
  5. Thrifty
    Thrifty 18 August 2020 05: 48 New
    +2
    Only one question to the author - where and when did we fire at the tanks of the NATO countries and the USA with the Reflex Tournament with a negative result when the tank was hit in the frontal part? Nonsense about the non-penetration of the frontal armor of the enemy's tanks with these ammunition from where?
    1. Shopping Mall
      18 August 2020 08: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: Thrifty
      Only one question to the author - where and when did we fire at the tanks of the NATO countries and the USA with the Reflex Tournament with a negative result when the tank was hit in the frontal part? Nonsense about the non-penetration of the frontal armor of the enemy's tanks with these ammunition from where?


      From TTX:

      Armor penetration "Reflex": 900 mm or 800-850 for DZ

      Durability MBT M1A2SEP tower: ~ 900-950 mm from OBPS / ~ 1600 mm from CS, hull: presumably 700 mm from OBPS / 1100 mm from CS

      After all, it is necessary not only to pierce the armor, but also to ensure a sufficient beyond-barrier action. Why, in your opinion, are now almost not using cumulative anti-tank shells against tanks, only against lightly armored targets, for which it is a pity to spend BOPS?

      Of course, we can say that "they" overestimate the protection indicators, but where is the guarantee that "we" do not overestimate. The 120-mm cumulative M830 (HEAT-MP-T) has 550-600 mm armor penetration.
  6. Constanty
    Constanty 18 August 2020 07: 58 New
    +2
    What is the likelihood that on a modern battlefield saturated with reconnaissance equipment, two tanks with modern target detection equipment will collide at a distance of less than 500 meters? What is the likelihood that they will collide at all?


    This snippet interested me.

    If we are wondering if there will be any collisions between tanks at all, we can conclude that the whole discussion of the gun / missile dilemma may be academic at all.
    1. Shopping Mall
      18 August 2020 08: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: Constanty
      What is the likelihood that on a modern battlefield saturated with reconnaissance equipment, two tanks with modern target detection equipment will collide at a distance of less than 500 meters? What is the likelihood that they will collide at all?


      This snippet interested me.

      If we are wondering if there will be any collisions between tanks at all, we can conclude that the whole discussion of the gun / missile dilemma may be academic at all.


      So:

      This probability will obviously be small, but still it is.


      This is more likely because the presence of a limited number of expensive hypersonic ATGMs in ammunition will not ruin the country, since tanks will rarely have to be fired at. Mainly for "soft targets", fortifications, lightly armored vehicles, UAVs, etc. etc.
      1. Constanty
        Constanty 18 August 2020 08: 31 New
        0
        With the decline in the number of tanks in Western Europe, the days when thousands of tanks could be expected to collide are over.

        Most of them (for example, the Polish T-72M1, Leopard 2A4 and the Russian T-72B3) are vulnerable to BOPS that are already in service.

        The T-14 Armata may be an exception.

        Therefore, in my opinion, something like the DM-11 from Rheinmetall can become the base type.
      2. Pirate
        Pirate 18 August 2020 08: 42 New
        +2
        There are practically no chances to pierce the forehead of the tower either with a shotgun or with "stubs of bobs" 125 mm
        1. Crimean partisan 1974
          Crimean partisan 1974 19 August 2020 10: 07 New
          -1
          credit cutting ... but admirers of western bridgeodonts got in the way
        2. Maxim364364
          Maxim364364 19 August 2020 15: 25 New
          -1
          So no one is going to shoot him in the forehead unless out of hopelessness, but something tells me that even without breaking through to those inside the Abrams after being hit on the forehead by 125 mm, the blank will not seem a little, and there you can have time to add the control one while the loader is a shell-shocked turret twist.
      3. mr.Man
        mr.Man 18 August 2020 18: 14 New
        0
        hypersonic ATGM

        what
        Hypersonic controlled?
        1. Shopping Mall
          19 August 2020 07: 58 New
          0
          Quote: mr.Man
          hypersonic ATGM

          what
          Hypersonic controlled?


          Prospects for the development of ATGM: hypersound or homing?
          https://topwar.ru/173607-perspektivy-razvitija-ptur-giperzvuk-ili-samonavedenie.html
  7. Mazuta
    Mazuta 18 August 2020 08: 24 New
    +1
    "The tasks are clear, the goals are defined, Comrade Author, get to work!"
    Effective management in the Khrushchev style ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 18 August 2020 10: 16 New
      +5
      Khrushchev was talking about completely different missiles. And by the way, his point of view in modern Russia eventually won out. The presence of ICBMs compensates for the relatively weak conventional aircraft.
      1. Aag
        Aag 18 August 2020 20: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Spade
        Khrushchev was talking about completely different missiles. And by the way, his point of view in modern Russia eventually won out. The presence of ICBMs compensates for the relatively weak conventional aircraft.

        Partially compensates in certain conditions ...
  8. dzvero
    dzvero 18 August 2020 09: 54 New
    0
    The author's logic leads to the cannon-PU variant. Smoothbore cannon 152 mm long in 30-35 calibers only with OFS for work on unarmored targets. For armored - ATGM in projectile dimensions. If you abandon the BOPS, the mass of the gun will be less and the reserve can be spent on defense or on ammo.
    1. Shopping Mall
      18 August 2020 10: 07 New
      +3
      Quote: dzvero
      The author's logic leads to the cannon-PU variant. Smoothbore cannon 152 mm long in 30-35 calibers only with OFS for work on unarmored targets. For armored - ATGM in projectile dimensions. If you abandon the BOPS, the mass of the gun will be less and the reserve can be spent on defense or on ammo.


      And why do you need a cannon at all, if everything can be implemented in the form factor of rockets? They will not have such a strict limitation in length and caliber, there is no need to change the barrel, they can be directed faster, the overloads at the start are lower - the design is simpler, cheaper. A cannon needs a sophisticated autoloader, especially for long rounds.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 18 August 2020 10: 13 New
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        And why do you need a cannon at all, if everything can be implemented in the form factor of rockets?

        So that unguided PCs can be used with acceptable accuracy
        1. Shopping Mall
          18 August 2020 10: 20 New
          +2
          Quote: Spade
          Quote: AVM
          And why do you need a cannon at all, if everything can be implemented in the form factor of rockets?

          So that unguided PCs can be used with acceptable accuracy


          In my opinion the disadvantages will outweigh the advantages. At a short range of up to 500, or even up to 1000 meters, completely unguided rockets are sufficient. Further - one way or another, you need control, or the simplest INS, or a laser beam, as in the modified NAR "Hydra".

          With a low ballistic cannon, it will be rather a heavily armored self-propelled gun of the KV-2 type.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 18 August 2020 10: 36 New
            +2
            Quote: AVM
            At a short range of up to 500, or even up to 1000 meters, completely unguided rockets are sufficient.

            ?
            Not enough. Even at short ranges, at least TPK is used. Like eraz barrel / guide



            Quote: AVM
            With a low ballistic cannon, it will be rather a heavily armored self-propelled gun of the KV-2 type.

            laughing
            Rather, this:



            Actually, as far as I understood, uv. Ivo alludes to the M81-type gun of the Sheridan tank.
            1. Shopping Mall
              18 August 2020 11: 18 New
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              Quote: AVM
              At a short range of up to 500, or even up to 1000 meters, completely unguided rockets are sufficient.

              ?
              Not enough. Even at short ranges, at least TPK is used. Like eraz barrel / guide


              Of course, without TPK anywhere.
            2. Aag
              Aag 18 August 2020 21: 08 New
              0
              "Even at short ranges, at least TPK is used. As an erac-barrel / guide"
              This is not always the main function of the TPK.
              ... Even, judging by the abbreviation: after all, not a PTK (launch transport), but a TPK!
              Sorry for ... meticulousness, but when people who have proven themselves not uryakalka in the news section speak, I would like to understand the aspects of the topic under discussion. hi
          2. garri-lin
            garri-lin 18 August 2020 11: 17 New
            +1
            For the future, the path described above is optimal. Low ballistic gun, large caliber plus very cool rockets. Rockets can be through the barrel or from the UVP. If the caliber of the gun is 152, then I think this is not enough for the diameter of the ATGM. 180? 203? For modern purposes on the battlefield, 125 mm HE is enough. The rest is a matter of artillery, aviation and OTRK. For a modern weapon, you need an ATGM not limited by the caliber of the barrel, but fully consistent with your concept. Piece, expensive but multifunctional and effective. Couple on the tank. Or 4 for long marches
      2. dzvero
        dzvero 18 August 2020 10: 27 New
        +1
        For ATGM / RS you still need a launcher. You can, of course, use disposable containers, but what to do with them after launch? Store or discard from a tank? Is the container able to provide protection of the ATGM / RS before launch, when it is "in place and ready"? After all, then the mass and dimensions of the container will limit the ammo being transported. You can use a vertical launch, but then the design of both ATGM and guidance systems becomes more complicated.
        So the PU cannon doesn't look so bad. Eliminating BOPS simplifies borehole requirements. The resource will be higher. AZ / MZ will be present in one way or another, but the same form factor of the projectile and ATGM / RS will not limit the ammo. And the OFS is cheaper.
        1. Shopping Mall
          18 August 2020 11: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: dzvero
          For ATGM / RS you still need a launcher. You can, of course, use disposable containers, but what to do with them after launch? Store or discard from a tank?


          Definitely disposable, most likely to be thrown away.

          Quote: dzvero
          Is the container able to provide protection of the ATGM / RS before launch, when it is "in place and ready"?


          More on this in the next article on the topic.
        2. Aag
          Aag 18 August 2020 21: 18 New
          +1
          Quote: dzvero
          For ATGM / RS you still need a launcher. You can, of course, use disposable containers, but what to do with them after launch? Store or discard from a tank? Is the container able to provide protection of the ATGM / RS before launch, when it is "in place and ready"? After all, then the mass and dimensions of the container will limit the ammo being transported. You can use a vertical launch, but then the design of both ATGM and guidance systems becomes more complicated.
          So the PU cannon doesn't look so bad. Eliminating BOPS simplifies borehole requirements. The resource will be higher. AZ / MZ will be present in one way or another, but the same form factor of the projectile and ATGM / RS will not limit the ammo. And the OFS is cheaper.

          The author cited a lot of tools in the article, mentioned the accompanying drives. Yes, he wrote the OFS, like (no, I'm not special, but the article, IMHO, normal, with raising the question, argumentation, without categorical conclusions, calmly and judiciously).
  9. Lopatov
    Lopatov 18 August 2020 10: 29 New
    +1
    This is all good, of course.
    But in the long term, the barrel systems will become practically safe. In the variants of electrothermochemical weapons or the use of binary LMW.

    And RS will be a constant threat to the tank and its crew.

    Further, the minimum range of application. For rocket systems, the higher the speed, the higher it is. At LOSAT, as far as I remember, it is about 500 meters.
    1. Shopping Mall
      18 August 2020 11: 17 New
      0
      Quote: Spade
      This is all good, of course.
      But in the long term, the barrel systems will become practically safe. In the variants of electrothermochemical weapons or the use of binary LMW.

      And RS will be a constant threat to the tank and its crew.

      Further, the minimum range of application. For rocket systems, the higher the speed, the higher it is. At LOSAT, as far as I remember, it is about 500 meters.


      I see a solution to the minimum range problem this way:

      As for the destruction of enemy tanks at close range (up to 500 meters), then here, too, various solutions can be implemented in the form of ATGMs or unguided ammunition with two sequentially located cumulative warheads and two additional leading charges designed to penetrate dynamic protection - dimensions of tank ATGM quite allow to implement it.

      Or it could be a high-explosive ammunition with a leading shrapnel charge to overcome the KAZ. If we are considering an ammunition for firing at a range of 1-2 kilometers, then its warhead may contain several tens of kilograms of explosives.

      The defeat of a tank with a high-explosive charge of this power is likely to lead to its destruction. At the very least, it will be completely immobilized, the external weapons and observation modules will be destroyed, the gun barrel damaged. With a salvo launch of a powerful high-explosive and enhanced cumulative ammunition, with means of overcoming KAZ, the probability of hitting an enemy tank will be even higher.
  10. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 18 August 2020 11: 17 New
    +3
    I solemnly express my full "approvals" to the Author! good For I myself have been adhering to the "rocket-tank concept" for a long time fellow Missile weapons can be positioned like this ..

    and so ...

    Of course, the option with vertical missile launch is more promising (equally convenient use of anti-tank missiles, assault missiles ..., missiles, UAVs ...), but the option with a "horizontal" launch with the placement of missiles in a low-silhouette uninhabited tower is also suitable ... Combined weapons are not completely ruled out. (missiles + short-barreled low-ballistic weapon ...) As the Author rightly noted, it is possible to create "budget" missiles with simplified guidance systems: 1. INS; 2. laser; 3, possibly by infrared ray; 4. even by wires (fiber-optic communication lines, for example) with a system of "technical vision" ... The author in the article commended hypersonic anti-tank missiles, but somehow dismissively about anti-tank missiles with cumulative warheads ... But there are also anti-tank missiles with "nuclear strike" warheads ... similar missiles have prospects for further development (warheads with the possibility of controlled formation of elongated feathered penetrators ... "analogues" of BOPSs ...)
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 18 August 2020 11: 25 New
      0
      The analogue of BOPSA is a cumulative jet. Either a core or a jet. They are both plastic and this is their disadvantage.
  11. Whowhy
    Whowhy 18 August 2020 11: 45 New
    +2
    Everything stated in the article, in my opinion, is easy to combine when using a large-caliber low ballistics weapon (152-160mm), which will simultaneously be a launcher for missiles. Armored vehicles are not priority targets for tanks, therefore, guided missiles should not take up much space in the ammunition load, and the use of conventional shells in the terrain, coupled with low barrel wear, will give significant financial savings. The use of low ballistics weapons with high elevation angles gives, IMHO, many advantages in modern warfare. For example, during hostilities in the city and when firing at targets on the reverse side of hills (including guided projectiles with illumination from DRGs, or UAVs). The increased caliber again makes it possible to increase the power and range of rocket ammunition. Among the disadvantages is an increase in the size of the fighting compartment for storing and loading missiles and, as a result, a slight increase in the size of the tank and a decrease in the ammunition carried.
  12. Undecim
    Undecim 18 August 2020 12: 52 New
    +7
    The first and only mass-produced rocket tank with missiles as the main weapon was the Soviet "Tank Destroyer" IT-1 "Dragon" (Object 150), which was put into service in 1968.
    The author is mistaken.

    Israeli Pereh rocket tank. The chassis of the Magach 5 tank (the Israeli designation of the American M48A5 tank) served as the base for it.
    The tank's standard turret was replaced with an enlarged one, which was equipped with a launcher for 12 Spike-NLOS missiles and two FN MAG machine guns.
    The cannon on the turret is a fake one, it serves for disguise. The tank has been widely used in all armed conflicts over the past 25 years, but it was only declassified in 2015.
    1. Boratsagdiev
      Boratsagdiev 19 August 2020 14: 13 New
      +1
      Very rare "car" few people know about it.
      Although on VO about her like they wrote already.
  13. prodi
    prodi 18 August 2020 15: 04 New
    0
    in general, it is logical that a precision long-barreled art for such a "workhorse" as a tank is clearly redundant; need a universal (rocket-cannon), increased caliber, rifled with low ballistics, with increased elevation angles
    1. prodi
      prodi 18 August 2020 16: 48 New
      0
      it seems that at the expense of the gun-missile versatility of the barrel he got excited: it will not work to launch a tandem anti-tank ammunition through the barrel (in length); and it is generally not clear how to reliably cover and launch it
  14. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 18 August 2020 15: 26 New
    +6
    The rocket tank did not take off precisely because the rocket does not need a tank.

    What is the tank doing? Drags a heavy cannon at a distance of 1-4 km from the enemy. The tank's armor covers the cannon and everything else that is needed to deliver this cannon and armor to the same distance.

    If we do not have a heavy cannon, the launcher is carried by hand and with five missiles and a crew is placed in an UAZ, and it does not take much longer for an infantryman to dig into the ground - neither a heavy platform nor armor is needed.

    Well, this is not to mention the fact that a package of 2-4 missiles of any caliber can be installed on any tank outside and completely independent of the gun.
    1. prodi
      prodi 18 August 2020 16: 50 New
      0
      the tank is needed, namely, as a "well-armored platform" for weapons
      1. Aag
        Aag 18 August 2020 21: 49 New
        0
        Quote: prodi
        the tank is needed, namely, as a "well-armored platform" for weapons

        In a narrowly specialized sense (?) ...
      2. Sancho_SP
        Sancho_SP 19 August 2020 00: 14 New
        0
        Armor is not a panacea. A tank has armor only because in an offensive it is impossible to protect a heavy weapon otherwise. And in the conditions of an offensive, the enemy's tank is far from the main goal.

        But in defense or ambush (in the fight against enemy tanks), heavy weapons are completely unnecessary. Grenade launchers at short range and portable ATGMs at the far distance are quite enough. And in defense, digging into the ground 30 meters from the launcher is much more pleasant than hiding behind a meter of tank armor.
        1. prodi
          prodi 19 August 2020 07: 47 New
          +1
          Quote: Sancho_SP

          But in defense or ambush (in the fight against enemy tanks), heavy weapons are completely unnecessary. Grenade launchers at short range and portable ATGMs at the far distance are quite enough. And in defense, digging into the ground 30 meters from the launcher is much more pleasant than hiding behind a meter of tank armor.

          and no one makes a panacea out of the tank, however, several "control" shrapnel explosions over the place of the proposed defense can seriously moderate such optimism
        2. Shopping Mall
          19 August 2020 07: 54 New
          0
          Quote: Sancho_SP

          But in defense or in an ambush (in the fight against enemy tanks), heavy weapons are completely unnecessary. Grenade launchers at short range and portable ATGMs at the far distance are quite enough.


          In urban conditions, it was still all right, although the tank may well bring down the entrance together with an ambush and withstand half a dozen hits from a grenade launcher (as experience shows, there are examples, in my opinion, in my article about armor). KAZ will further increase the tank's protection.

          What if the battle is in places like Syria? Or even the steppes of the Krasnadar Territory?
    2. Shopping Mall
      19 August 2020 07: 56 New
      0
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      Well, this is not to mention the fact that a package of 2-4 missiles of any caliber can be installed on any tank outside and completely independent of the gun.


      And after the very first close burst of a HE shell or a couple of bursts from a machine gun, all these missiles worth 40 - 000 dollars will go to scrap.

      No, this will not work out, on the machine the front edge of the missiles must be hidden under the armor and removed immediately before launch.
  15. tarakan
    tarakan 18 August 2020 18: 12 New
    0
    1 scribe, whole book laughing (in a good way)
    2-although I am a civilian, but I suppose that the rocket is not friendly with the REB, and the projectile is like a bullet (fool) laughing
    1. Shopping Mall
      19 August 2020 07: 50 New
      0
      Quote: tarakan
      2-although I am a civilian, but I suppose that the rocket is not friendly with the REB, and the projectile is like a bullet (fool) laughing


      It depends on what kind. Electronic warfare can only affect missiles with a radar seeker or with radio control. Well, or hammer the GPS signal. For telecontrolled missiles, it is impossible to interfere with the laser beam.
  16. Hog
    Hog 18 August 2020 23: 19 New
    0
    The topic has not been disclosed, I am waiting for an article about hypersonic ATGM vs Reilgan.
  17. Crimean partisan 1974
    Crimean partisan 1974 19 August 2020 10: 50 New
    +1
    Why argue ... you need to ask the tankers, personally, in a conversation with them, I was interested in the ammunition load. to which they answered. it's better to fill the carousel with UR and OF-36 and that's it. any other denomination is not needed, it only takes up space and forces during loading and unloading. and the presence of a cumulative and a weighty OF in the Invar lineup is no longer needed for OF-36
    the explanation is simple
    -UR does not pull the barrel
    -after the shot, a low cloud of dust and gases
    - no need to adjust the barrel and generally any adjustments to the sight
    -the ability to conduct effective fire on the move
    as for the economic part, if you don't chew, the country's Armed Forces are already quite an expensive part. and if a tank missile launcher is put on stream, then, as a rule, the cost price drops sharply
  18. Gust
    Gust 19 August 2020 12: 22 New
    0
    The Israelis already have such a rocket tank, even with a fake cannon;))

    In the 152 mm caliber, it is quite possible to create a competitive ATGM. And the BC will fit well in the tower niche, without any restrictions on the length. It is only necessary to shoot ATGMs with compressed air, otherwise the evo engine also leads to barrel wear.
  19. Boratsagdiev
    Boratsagdiev 19 August 2020 14: 11 New
    0
    "Cannon or missiles ?!" - spear or bow?
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 21 August 2020 01: 44 New
      0
      rather a bow or crossbow ...
  20. Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 21 August 2020 17: 00 New
    0

    Is it possible to implement their equivalent in rocket format? Of course, yes, and with significantly greater efficiency.

    The author, calm down.

    Thus, the main advantage that a missile tank will have in comparison with a tank equipped with a cannon will be the highest versatility due to the possibility of flexible formation of ammunition for solving various combat missions in different conditions.

    Absolutely unfounded, unsubstantiated statement.


    What is the point of wasting a guided projectile on a target located 500 meters away, especially a stationary one?

    A very reasonable question. Its development: why is there a rocket here at all?

    Total. By the author, tanks shoot at a variety of targets other than tanks. Moreover: they shoot mainly at targets other than tanks. In all these cases, the use of a rocket is unnecessary and unreasonable. To hit targets at 10+ km is also not a tank business. What you propose makes sense for a specialized tank destroyer, not a tank.
    1. Shopping Mall
      23 August 2020 18: 24 New
      0
      Quote: Sckepsis

      Is it possible to implement their equivalent in rocket format? Of course, yes, and with significantly greater efficiency.

      The author, calm down.


      I'll figure out what to do without you.

      Quote: Sckepsis
      Thus, the main advantage that a missile tank will have in comparison with a tank equipped with a cannon will be the highest versatility due to the possibility of flexible formation of ammunition for solving various combat missions in different conditions.

      Absolutely unfounded, unsubstantiated statement.


      Some find it hard, try rereading it a few times.

      Quote: Sckepsis
      What is the point of wasting a guided projectile on a target located 500 meters away, especially a stationary one?

      A very reasonable question. Its development: why is there a rocket here at all?


      The phrase is taken out of context. If you read a little before and a little after, then everything becomes clear.

      Quote: Sckepsis
      Total. By the author, tanks shoot at a variety of targets other than tanks. Moreover: they shoot mainly at targets other than tanks. In all these cases, the use of a rocket is unnecessary and unreasonable. To hit targets at 10+ km is also not a tank business. What you propose makes sense for a specialized tank destroyer, not a tank.


      The rocket tank can also fire at a variety of targets besides tanks. Moreover, he can shoot at a wider range of targets, for example, it is easier for him to "lift" the launcher in order to shoot at the upper floors of the building. Or attack an aerial target. In all these cases, the cost of firing a missile, guided or unguided, will be comparable to the cost of a projectile, guided or unguided.

      Tank business to hit on any targets that he can reach. If it is possible to create ammunition with a range of 10+ km, then why not have it in the tank ammunition load? And what range should the tank be "limited"? in 1991, the Challenger knocked out an Iranian T-55 from a distance of 5100 meters with an unguided shell. Our tanks have a range of TUR Reflex 5000 meters, if they put 152 mm, it would be 8000 meters. And Krasnopol and 12-15 km is quite real, and this was discussed quite seriously.
      1. Phoenix
        Phoenix 25 October 2020 13: 49 New
        0
        Read your responses to criticisms from readers ... You shouldn't write anymore. Well, really, there is no need.
  21. Phoenix
    Phoenix 25 October 2020 13: 48 New
    0
    The author writes off the guns early. The race is not over yet. We only got to the limit when using solid powder and a conventional percussion primer igniter. Research programs on the topic of an electrothermochemical gun have shown the possibility of using liquid combustible mixtures with higher combustion rates and the ability to initiate the mixture at several points simultaneously, using plasma initiators instead of a percussion capsule for the entire length of the projectile ... The gun will not go anywhere, at least because those are the same rockets can be launched through it. Why cut back on opportunities? In conflicts where enemy tanks are not encountered, we have full ammunition complexes of inexpensive landmines, and the author proposes to shoot at barmaley with more expensive missiles. What for?
  22. Mister who
    Mister who 25 October 2020 13: 59 New
    0
    $ 10000 for a shell to destroy a tank is a penny))
  23. Mister who
    Mister who 25 October 2020 14: 10 New
    0
    Take an old tank without a tower with several drones and guided missiles from the same drones that are of the drone type also fly from different directions against the same Armata and see who is who. Have the sun already tested this? Interesting.
  24. Mister who
    Mister who 25 October 2020 14: 24 New
    0
    A new type of combat vehicles of a wide range is emerging, a cross between a tank and the same torus, the defeat of tanks, reconnaissance, and will also be able to cover fighters from missiles on the battlefield. True, you need to take into account the emitters that affect the fuses and disable the electronics.