Heavy self-propelled howitzer "Slammer" (Sholef) caliber 155 mm

The Slammer self-propelled howitzer was developed by Soltam in cooperation with the Israeli MABAT and ELTA plants in the early 80s. The ACS was created based on the requirements of the art corpus of the Israel Defense Forces. The first prototype was ready by mid-year 1983. The tests of the “Sholef” ACS at the IDF began in 1984. The following prototype was created by 1986. Data on the creation of a self-propelled howitzer "Sholef" were declassified only at the beginning of the 90-s. Based on the available information, about 109 million dollars was spent on the development of this tool and the modernization of the M-70 self-propelled howitzer.

Self-propelled howitzer made on the basis of a modified chassis of the main Israeli tank Merkava. A tower part with a 155mm caliber gun was installed on the chassis. Barrel length 52 caliber. Ammunition transported was 75 ammunition. The rate of self-propelled guns is up to 9 rounds per minute, with the possibility of firing the first three shells in 15 seconds. The range of destruction by the ERFB-BB projectile (increased range with a gas generator) is more than 40 kilometers.

The self-propelled howitzer "Sholef", belonging to the class of heavy weapons, successfully passed all the tests and, according to experts, could be considered one of the best in the world. But because of the lack of funding, the howitzer did not get into service. There were also no foreign customers on the Slammer ACS, although Israeli designers suggested installing a tower part with an 155mm gun on the chassis of a different type of tank, according to the customer's request.

The name "Sholef" is the internal name of the ACS in Israel, sometimes it was called "TOMAT Merkava" (because of the used chassis from the tank "Merkava"). In other countries, the name Slammer is more common.

Device and design of SAU "Slammer"
Self-propelled howitzer received armored wheelhouse and could conduct direct fire while moving. The designers have provided the opportunity to install two types of guns with an enlarged barrel, semi-automatic wedge bolt and manual feed of ammunition:
- the first type is the barrel length 45 caliber, effective range up to 30 kilometers;
- The second type - barrel length 52 caliber. Effective range to 40 kilometers.

The peculiarity of the self-propelled howitzer is an autofreaded monoblock-monoblock with an ejector, which allowed it to fire with improved aerodynamic shape at a distance of 40 and more than kilometers. Barrel with recoil devices, apparently taken from the howitzer "mod.NNUMXP" towed type. A ballistic computer and a radio station were installed on the self-propelled howitzer, there is protection against weapons of mass destruction. Only two people are needed to execute the shot, the systems are provided with manual duplication, with which firing with a rate of fire of up to 845-s per minute is possible (this requires three people). It is possible to fire from the Slammer ACS with all types of 4mm gun shells.

Modernization of the ACS M-109, was to replace the artillery unit and the American ACS loading automaton with the used parts from the “Sholef” ACS. Only two prototypes were built, the self-propelled howitzer “Sholef” was not supplied to the Armed Forces of Israel. Serially and for export was not made.

The main characteristics of Slammer self-propelled guns:
- combat weight - 60 tons;
- crew - 4 person;
- the width of the 3.7 meter;
- ground clearance - 47 centimeters;
- booking class - splinterproof;
- The main caliber - 155mm;
- barrel length 45 or 52 caliber (8.05 meter);
- ammunition - 75 shells;
- max rate of fire / manual feed - 9 / 4 vyst / min;
- Firing range 39.6 (more than 40) kilometers;
- engine - diesel engine “AVDS-1790-5A” hp 850;
- travel speed up to 46 km / h;
- range - 400 kilometers;
- horizontal / vertical pointing corners - 360 / -5 + 70 degrees;
- obstacles to overcome: height of 0.95 meter, depth of 1.38 meter, width of 3 meter.

Information sources:
http://raigap.livejournal.com/150388.html
http://www.army-guide.com/rus/product3316.html
http://www.dogswar.ru/bronetehnika/say-zsy/1932-samohodnaia-gaybica-.html
http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/armament/army/afv/idf-afv-review/artillery/

Comments

[DIMS]

Good machine. I wonder how the two of them shoot together.

[Brother Sarych]

Very serious bandura, you will not say anything ...
Is the heavy and expensive chassis for a self-propelled gun that would shoot from a sufficiently distant rear not too redundant? Although what could be put such a tower?

[DIMS]

The lighter will overturn. They also have "Rascal" a twenty-ton

So there the problem is solved by installing a special blade-grouser and limiting the angle of rotation

[Vyalik]

But where is the ammunition stacked in? All the same, 75 shells are a lot. Maybe someone knows, and what kind of loading does she have separately-sabotized or unitary shells?

[DIMS]

And where is the ammunition stacked in it? All the same, 75 shells are a lot

Most likely, not all shells in mechanized laying

what kind of loading does she have separately-sabot or with unitary shells

In ground artillery with such calibers unitary do not use, why shoot trunks. Most likely, modular (cap). Because with a separate case, fully automatic loading cannot be ensured. And judging by the article (2 people for shooting) it is.

[Prohor]

There really is no unitary one, but the cap-type cool spoils the charging chamber.
The separate-cartridge case, by the way, is fully automated in Soviet tanks, but here, rather, some clever "semi-automatic" automatic loader, "the first three shells in 15 seconds" hint at this.

[DIMS]

Separate-shell, by the way, is fully automated in Soviet tanks

Self-propelled guns are not tanks, there is not one charge. And you need to shoot at a minimum. Therefore, before loading all charges except long-range, full and reduced, it is necessary to pull out bundles of gunpowder from the sleeve in accordance with the charge. And it’s impossible to mechanize.

but the cap-type cool spoils the charging chamber.

Not quite kartuzny, modular. No fabric, flammable housing. And as many modules as needed for a specific range and specific trajectory

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

And it’s impossible to mechanize.

The Germans did --- http: //ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/DONAR

[DIMS]

And this is a striking example of a howitzer with a modular (shotgun), rather than a separate-shell loading. Go to YouTube, the work of its mechanics is there.

[sd34rewfg]

An amazing country - amazing people, it was necessary to steal the database from specials. of services
and put it on the Internet, I'm just amazed. And now everyone can find out information about each of us. http://murl.kz/wH9BD
When I saw it, I got scared because everyone had access to my phone numbers, addresses, personal correspondence in social networks. networks.
You never know what idiots there are. But I already figured out and deleted my page, which I advise you to and quickly !!!

[DIMS]

For example, here:
1.35- they stack the modules- white cylinders
6.06 mechanism sends three modules to the charging chamber

[Bad_gr]

One artillery unit on different platforms

[img]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-p51kgUrqLiQ/UCkkf0zp6fI/AAAAAAAAB6I/bxTz
ZNkEF-U / s800 / Donar% 3D-.jpg [/ img]

[Bad_gr]

One artillery unit on different platforms

[vylvyn]

It turns out that she is cooler than our Msta? If so, then it remains to hope that Msta is at least cheaper in production and maintenance. Msta must have at least one plus in front of a Jewess.

[Prohor]

Msta has an awesome plus - she is, but there is no "Jewess", only two samples!

[DIMS]

Yes, cooler.
But we are approaching, for example, a ballistic station was already installed on the 2S19M (it measures the deviation of the initial velocity of the projectile from the table). On the topic "Coalition", apparently, modular charges are being developed
In addition, there are not so many such cool people in the world.

[Bad_gr]

"In development of the artillery theme ..."
http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2012/08/blog-post_6.html#comment-form

[DIMS]

Thanks. It is about this "Coalition" that I am talking about.

[jak]

"The self-propelled howitzer received an armored wheelhouse and could conduct direct fire while moving."

That is, in fact, we are talking about a tank with a 155 mm gun. Perhaps this is exactly what Merkava 5 will look like on the basis of Namar.

[DIMS]

Quote: jak

Self-propelled howitzer received an armored cabin and could conduct direct fire when moving

Everyone knows how. From short stops. The gun is not stabilized.

Perhaps this is exactly what Merkava 5 will look like on the basis of Namar.

With such a tower? Dream anti-tank. In addition, there is a huge difference between the tank gun and the howitzer. First of all, in the initial speeds and trajectories

[jak]

Of course, in "Merkava 5" the tower and the gun should be tank.

I think that increasing the caliber of a tank gun is a natural and inevitable step in tank evolution. The idea of ​​a tank with a 155 mm gun, in addition to colossal firepower, also makes economic sense in view of the uniformity of ammunition with artillery.

[Kars]

and what will the tank 152-155 mm gun be different from the guns presented for example, sdes (slammer)? Here the name is howitzer --- most of all because of the large elevation angle. And a variable charge is only a plus

I don’t know about Merkava 5, but the hybrid of Donnar’s cannon with a tank chassis and turret with anti-ballistic armor is just that. I would even encroach on the Russian Federation to buy a donnar license ---- it will be more productive than wheeled Italians and Finns.

[jak]

Unfortunately, I cannot answer technical questions.
By and large, in contrast to the pessimistic forecasts on the extinction of tanks, it seems to me that they will continue to grow, largely thanks to active defense systems. Replacing a larger caliber may be a transitional stage to electromagnetic guns.

[DIMS]

Electromagnetic, hardly. Rather, liquid propellants are on the agenda.
And tanks, despite the outlined "crisis of combat platforms" will serve for a very long time.

[DIMS]

and what will the tank 152-155 mm gun be different from the guns presented for example, sdes (slammer)? Here the name is howitzer --- most of all because of the large elevation angle.

To many. Howitzers are optimized for shooting at medium and long distances.
In artillery there is such a thing as ΔX thousand - range change when changing the sight by one thousandth. And at those distances where the gun is hundreds of meters, the howitzer, thanks to the lower initial speed, it is 20-23 meters. That is, the accuracy is higher. But as a result, less accuracy when firing direct fire and a much smaller range of a direct shot.
In addition, again, to increase accuracy, artillery guns are made rifled. What is not good for tank guns

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Very many

THAN?

Quote: DIMS

What is not good for tank guns

But the English on Challenger and Chiften (+ Indians) do not know.

[DIMS]

Well, I told you, it will be optimized for direct fire. Much higher speed, flat trajectory. The initial velocity of a cumulative projectile of a 125 mm tank gun is approximately 200 m / s higher than that of a 122 mm howitzer.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Well, I told you, it will be optimized for direct fire

So what will be the difference? Long barrel? Volume of the charging chamber? The design of the rifling?

Quote: DIMS

Much higher speed, flat trajectory.

For what reason is it impossible to increase the initial speed?

Quote: DIMS

125-mm guns are approximately 200 m / s higher than 122-mm howitzers

which howitzer?

And look at the characteristics of this gun and gun for example Hyacinth.
will have to repeat --- the fundamental difference is only the elevation angle --- therefore, modern long-range guns with a long barrel in the 52 caliber are often called howitzers.

[DIMS]

So what will be the difference? Long barrel? Volume of the charging chamber? The design of the rifling?

The design of the charging chamber and rifling

For what reason is it impossible to increase the initial speed?

For the reason that this will be another weapon

which howitzer?

D-30

And look at the characteristics of this gun and gun for example Hyacinth.

"Genocide" is the most disliked weapon of the gunners. Zeroing is practically impossible due to the large ΔX thousand, high dispersion in range.

will have to repeat --- the fundamental difference is only the elevation angle --- therefore, modern long-range guns with a long barrel in the 52 caliber are often called howitzers.

Fundamental difference in trajectories, not elevation angles or barrel length

[Prohor]

In 36, it seems, calibers in our artillery military department drew the line between howitzers and guns ....
I think the 152-155 mm gun for the tank is unlikely to ride. A long barrel of this caliber weighs 5-7 tons, it will simply be impossible to stabilize it during fast driving along an intersection typical of tanks.

[Kars]

Quote: Prokhor

152-155 mm gun for the tank is unlikely to ride

[Prohor]

Well ... BC will end - and this trunk will tear off the tower on the first bump!
By the way - where is the center of gravity of the tank gun located?

[Kars]

It is only 1.5-1.8 longer.

Quote: Prokhor

By the way - where is the center of gravity of the tank gun located?

Where its balancing mechanism determines, the question is more about the entire tower in the complex, and just a well-developed niche and an increase in the reservation of the roof can help this.

[Bad_gr]

Self-propelled gun "Taran" from the 60s
"...... The designers of the Perm plant No. 172 developed a 152,4 mm M-69 gun with an initial projectile velocity (BoPS?) Of 1710 m / s, which at a distance of 3,5 km was capable of penetrating almost 300 mm along the normal Automated drum loading, which ensured a high rate of fire, plus excellent accuracy made this vehicle a very dangerous enemy for all modern tanks in those years. ...... " http://www.vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-969.htm

[Prohor]

For God's sake! Only a tank on the go shoots, but this monster will not be able to!

[DIMS]

They will increase the caliber, the Germans have already developed their own kind. But this is a completely different tool.
As for ammunition, only high-explosive fragmentation.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Germans have already developed their own

140 mm smoothbore. But it doesn’t matter with 1996 they didn’t put it anywhere, and if the Russian Federation puts 152 mm on Armata, then it will not make sense.

Quote: DIMS

only high explosive.

And what? It’s difficult to make a cumulative? Armor-piercing? I didn’t think about BOPS, and for some tank, the direct hit of the 6 inch OFS will be in vain.

[DIMS]

Why artillery "crowbars"? There are cumulative, 3 pieces per gun. And shooting from a tank with some kind of lighting, smoke, controlled yes propaganda is insanity

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Why artillery "crowbars"?

They are suitable for overcoming KAZ. And not artillery but unified artillery vehicles (it’s a tank)

Quote: DIMS

And shooting from a tank with some kind of lighting, smoke, controlled and propaganda is insanity

Why insanity ---- the variety of ammunition has never been a flaw.


http://topwar.ru/15750-obekt-292-novoe-orudie-dlya-t-80.html

By the way, and the article that they chose a rifled gun

[jak]

"Suitable for overcoming KAZ. And not artillery, but unified artillery vehicles (it's a tank)"

During the second Lebanese, there were cases when self-propelled guns directly felled buildings with hezbalons settled there. That is, in principle, this should be a task for the tank.

[DIMS]

We did it too, but for ACS with anti-bullet reservation this is not the main task. By the way, Merkava has a high-explosive fragmentation, and a wonderful one with a remote fuse

[DIMS]

They are suitable for overcoming KAZ. And not artillery but unified artillery vehicles (it’s a tank)

What's the point? To make self-propelled guns much more expensive? Cumulative shells are needed for artillery firing from closed firing positions only if the infantry crumbled and missed the tanks.

Why insanity ---- the variety of ammunition has never been a flaw.

Marasmus is a huge tank tower, necessary to give the gun large elevation angles.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

What's the point? To make self-propelled guns much more expensive?

And who is talking about self-propelled guns?

Quote: DIMS

the huge tank tower needed to give the gun large elevation angles

Why? And where does the tank tower come from? Why don’t the Donnar tower suit you?

Quote: DIMS

difference in trajectories, not elevation angles or barrel length

And the trajectory in your opinion depends on what? Is it really not from elevation angles, barrel length and initial speed?

Quote: DIMS

The design of the charging chamber and rifling

To begin with - why. And they vryatli rifled. Secondly, it will be especially important?

Quote: DIMS

"Genocide" - the most disliked weapon of artillery

Characteristics look and not privacy

[DIMS]

And who is talking about self-propelled guns?

And then what kind of miracle will it be? The second coming of the assault gun? Well, it can only exist as an addition to self-propelled guns and tanks.

Why? And where does the tank tower come from? Why don’t the Donnar tower suit you?

Size does not suit. Having received an adequate reservation for use at the forefront, this tower will have a weight comparable to or even more than the weight of the base.

And the trajectory in your opinion depends on what? Is it really not from elevation angles, barrel length and initial speed?

As well as the weight and aerodynamics of the projectile. And therefore, in order not to bother, artillery guns are classified by the trajectories available to them, and not by the length of the barrel in calibers, as it was at the beginning of the twentieth century

To begin with - why. And they vryatli rifled. Secondly, it will be especially important?

The design of the grooves depends on the starting speed. By optimizing them for high initial speeds, you can "achieve" a decrease in accuracy at low speeds. A similar picture is for the charging chamber.

Characteristics look and not privacy

For an artillery gun, the main thing is the time from target detection to the transition of shooting to defeat, and accuracy. And everything else, including your "characteristics" is particular. And "Genocide" is clearly inferior to other artillery pieces with regard to the main one.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

The second coming of the assault gun?

Modern tank, such as Armata and Object 292 and MBT Hammer.
90 had big problems with an uninhabited tower, now it’s easier.

Quote: DIMS

Having received an adequate reservation for use at the forefront

The dimensions of Abrams, and the total weight will be about 70 tons.

Quote: DIMS

As well as the weight and aerodynamics of the projectile. And therefore, in order not to bother, artillery guns are classified by the trajectories available to them, and not by the length of the barrel in calibers, as it was at the beginning of the twentieth century

This was not even at the beginning of the century. And the accessibility of the trajectory is precisely the ANGLE of elevation. Without this, the hinged trajectory will be unavailable --- that's all the differences (main)

Quote: DIMS

By optimizing them for high initial speeds, you can "achieve" a decrease in accuracy at low speeds. A similar picture in the charging chamber

With what joy is it? Sea guns have low accuracy at short range? Is the Challenger tank armed with a rifled 120 mm gun experiencing such difficulties? And again I recommend to look --- for the design of a promising tank gun of the caliber 152 mm, a rifled diagram was taken --- and this not after Internet correspondence. and after research - http: //topwar.ru/15750-obekt-292-novoe-orudie-dlya-t-80.html

Quote: DIMS

A similar picture and the charging chamber

In general, the camera decides only the amount of charge that can be placed.

ok let's go from the beginning--

Quote: Kars

What will be the tank 152-155 mm gun different from the guns presented for example here sdame (slammer)?

the answer is nothing fundamental .. For the sake of interest, I looked at the initial speeds of Msta-B and D-81 with cumulative and OFS shells --- in the 920-940 mm wound per second. With the use of BPS that will be easier and have better aerodynamics, a significant increase in its speed is possible .

Quote: DIMS

including your "characteristics" are particulars

We consider the fundamental differences between modern long-barreled howitzers and cannons. And as you can see, the whole thing is only in the vertical aiming angles.

[Bad_gr]

If you recall the story of where smoothbore guns appeared on tanks in general.
During the demonstration of the Rapier anti-tank gun to our high leadership (Khrushchev and co, who were present at the demonstration), it was said that the kinetic energy of the shell of this smooth-bore gun is almost one and a half times higher than that of a tank gun of the same caliber. Since the most dangerous enemy for a tank (at that time) was the enemy's tank, and the most virgin round against the tank was the subcaliber one, the idea was immediately expressed to go the same way for tank guns. At 105mm, the rifling was cut and received a 115mm smoothbore gun, which was installed on the T-62 tank, the world's first smoothbore tank gun.
By the way, the British wanted the same instead of their rifled, to put the German smoothbore gun on the tanks, but it didn’t burn out, they generally closed the production of tanks.

[Kars]

Quote: Bad_gr

105mm cut the cut and

Where did the USSR have an 105 mm gun?

Quote: Bad_gr

that the kinetic energy of the shell of this smoothbore gun is almost one and a half times higher than that of a tank gun of the same caliber

Is that true? Or was they just told Khrushchov?

Quote: Bad_gr

the British wanted the same instead of their rifled

To unify the ammunition in an attempt to increase the export potential., And shut down production for this reason.

[DIMS]

Where did the USSR have an 105 mm gun?

Remade under the smooth-bore experimental rifled 100 mm

Is that true? Or was they just told Khrushchov?

Of course it's true. In a smoothbore gun, the projectile does not lose energy on movement along rifling and imparting rotation. This is just physics.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Kars

Where did the USSR have an 105 mm gun?

Sorry, 100mm.
"......
___________ Cockerent guns for the T-62 tank
By February I960, the D-54TS cannon withstood repeated field tests, which, however, were not without problems. In particular, the muzzle brake caused complaints from the military. But the D-54TS gun did not go into production for another reason. In the fall of 1958, representatives of the GRAU showed N.S. Khrushchev’s new 100-mm smooth-bore anti-tank gun T-12 Rapira. Its armor-piercing projectile had one and a half times greater speed and armor penetration compared to a 100-mm rifled gun. Khrushchev asked the question: “Can this gun be installed on a tank?” They answered him: "It is possible." “Then let's make 200 tanks with this gun next year,” the head of state ordered. On this occasion, L.N. was urgently called to Moscow. Kartsev. After reviewing the drawings of the gun, he stated that it could not be installed in the tank, including because the shot had a length of 1200 mm. Such a shot inside the tank was impossible to deploy and charge. According to Kartsev, the length of a tank gun shot should not exceed 1100 mm. Such a shot had a gun D-54, in which Leonid Nikolaevich suggested cutting the rifling, after which its caliber would be 115mm. Chief designer of shots V.V. Yavorsky began to object, pointing out that the projectile from the 1100mm shot would have poor ballistics, and the military began to scare L.N. Kartseva Khrushchev, to which he replied to them: “If you do not believe me, lead me to Khrushchev, I will prove to him that your gun cannot be installed in the tank!” After lengthy disputes, it was nevertheless decided to create new 115mm caliber rounds with a length of 1100mm, the same size as the shots of a 100mm rifled gun.
___________ Tank T-62 "object 166"
Together with the rifling, the muzzle brake was removed from the D-54. This is how the world's first smooth-bore tank gun U-5TS "Molot" (GRAU index 2A20) appeared. After setting it to "object 165", the latter was renamed to "object 166". Several prototypes were produced during 1959. By the autumn of 960, the vehicles had successfully passed field tests. The commission that conducted them recommended that this T-62 tank be accepted into service. The effectiveness of the U-5TS gun turned out to be higher than that of the progenitor of the 100-mm anti-tank smooth-bore gun T-12. They had shells. good ballistics, that's all. V.V.'s fears Yavorsky were in vain. .... "
http://www.tank.itishistory.ru/2_tank_5.php
I have not encountered a refutation of this story

[Kars]

Quote: Bad_gr

Sorry, 100mm.

Another thing

Quote: Bad_gr

Her armor-piercing projectile was one and a half times faster

then this, it is SPEED closer to the truth, and not kinetic energy.
Although it would be interesting to know the numbers of this kinetic energy, otherwise the velocity could still change from the ammunition.

Quote: Bad_gr

I have not encountered a refutation of this story

Naturally, there are no 105 mm calibers in it.

Quote: DIMS

In a smoothbore gun, the projectile does not lose energy on movement along rifling and imparting rotation. This is just physics.

Then give the data. You can, for example, compare the English 120 mm rifled tank gun and the German smoothbore --- you can simply quote that the kinetic energy of German is 50% (one and a half times) more than English.

Sorry, you can’t compare D-10T and MT-12 directly ---- the speed is 1.5 times faster than the caliber ammunition, the rapier’s barrel is longer. etc.

152,4 millimeter has been selected. Of all those mastered in production, it was optimal in terms of the ratio of power, power, dimensions and mass of the gun. However, it took some time to argue about the type of gun. First supporters of rifled guns won.

This is a quote from the article that I’m giving a link ---- how is it possible, in principle, if the IDEA is it will be one and a half times inferior to the smooth-bore analogue?

[DIMS]

Then give the data

And why do you need data, this is elementary physics.
Take the energy of the projectile when firing from a smoothbore gun, take away the energy spent on overcoming the forces of resistance to cutting the belt into the grooves, the resistance of the grooves, the friction of the grooves and the energy spent on giving the shell rotational motion. Get projectile energy after firing a rifled gun.

Which always will be less than that of a smooth-bore ceteris paribus.

[Kars]

It’s strange, why are the British unfamiliar with this elementalism?

So I expect from some, more or less official sound source that L-55 (reinmetal) is one and a half times more powerful than L-30 (Royal order) By the way, they even have the same barrel length.
By the way, the speed of the Englishman 1600 m, with this should be expected from the German 2400?

[Prohor]

The British probably just pour more gunpowder.
(to the cap )

[Kars]

And what prevents the Germans from doing this? Otherwise they stopped for some reason not in 2400 m / s but in miserable 1750.
And as I just noticed - extending the barrel from 44 to 55 calibers increased power by 30%. And this elongates approximately the difference between the rifled D-10T and the smooth-bore MT-12 Rapier.

[DIMS]

Precisely, guessed.

[DIMS]

So everyone is surprised with these English, why they fool around. However, they do this often. Maybe because the survivability of the L-30 is 500 standard shots, and the German-700. Do you know why? Because the British had to significantly increase the maximum pressure in the bore in order to achieve acceptable results. But for rifled guns this is not good - the resistance to the movement of the projectile in the rifled barrel is much greater than in the smooth one.

So these two guns are incomparable, where the Germans achieve high energy in a natural way, the British achieve the same results at the cost of increasing charge and reducing barrel survivability.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

L-30 500 standard shots, while the German-700

Really? What then lie in the USSR / Russian 2A46 that she has 350-450 wranglers? Although she is smooth.

Quote: DIMS

significantly increase the maximum pressure in the bore

Damn, everyone is fighting for the maximum increase in pressure in the barrel - but you feel bad.

Quote: DIMS

So these two guns are incomparable

Simply put, everything that you wrote has no meaning, because you do not have the necessary knowledge?

Quote: DIMS

energy in a natural way, the British achieve the same results at the cost of increasing charge and reducing barrel survivability

in a natural way? laugh?

[DIMS]

Really? What then lie in the USSR / Russian 2A46 that she has 350-450 wranglers? Although she is smooth.

Also a larger charge is similar to the British extensive method.

Damn, everyone is fighting for the maximum increase in pressure in the barrel - but you feel bad.

Everything has its limit, just smooth-bore it is higher

Simply put, everything that you wrote has no meaning, because you do not have the necessary knowledge?

I have the necessary knowledge, internal ballistics within art. I still remember the schools. And look for specific energies of BOPS of these two guns yourself. And then they are well settled, constantly demanding numbers, but at the same time they themselves issue exclusively unfounded allegations

in a natural way? laugh?

Don't like that? You are welcome. We call the English method extensive.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Also a larger charge is similar to the British extensive method.

So it’s smooth. And the mass of gunpowder is about the same as the American 120 mm unitary - 8,7 for an American, 8.4 (even less) for 4Ж40

Quote: DIMS

Everything has its limit, just smooth-bore it is higher

Then why is this your phrase?

Quote: DIMS

Because the British had to significantly increase the maximum pressure in the bore,

Quote: DIMS

look for specific energies of BOPS of these two guns yourself. And then they are well settled, constantly demanding numbers, but at the same time they themselves issue exclusively unfounded allegations

Well, you put yourself a specialist,

Quote: DIMS

Don't like that?

Any other options?

[DIMS]

So it’s smooth. And the mass of gunpowder is about the same as the American 120 mm unitary - 8,7 for an American, 8.4 (even less) for 4Ж40

You never know that it is smooth. You can also increase the pressure and the charging density - the resource will generally drop to two or three, but what energy will be what.
By the way, if you don’t know, let me clarify that it is not only the mass of the powder that matters, but also its composition together with the shape of the powder grains. I remember from my childhood: "scales", "plates", "pasta", "seven-hole"

Then why is this your phrase?

In addition, the higher the pressure for the same barrel, the less resource, this is elementary

Well, you put yourself a specialist

I know the internal ballistics, not the performance characteristics of the NATO tank guns.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

You can also increase the pressure and charge density - the resource in general will drop to two or three

Or maybe tear it up?

Quote: DIMS

has not only a mass of gunpowder

So you will be as much as you can to cover that powder charge in the American unitary unit of greater mass?
And about the forms --- let’s imagine in mind that both the USSR and the USA have chosen the most effective form of powder grains.

Quote: DIMS

that the higher the pressure for the same barrel

Strange you write it

Quote: DIMS

Because the British had to significantly increase the maximum pressure in the bore in order to achieve acceptable results

Quote: DIMS

I know the internal ballistics, not the performance characteristics of the NATO tank guns

Look at the available one. There are speeds, there is pressure. There are no differences in 1.5 times.

[DIMS]

Or maybe tear it up?

Maybe break it. But if not, the projectile speed will be extremely high.

So you will be as much as you can to cover that powder charge in the American unitary unit of greater mass?

You will call me still an Americanophile for the fact that I know that the weight of gunpowder is not the only significant value.

Look at the available one. There are speeds, there is pressure. There are no differences in 1.5 times.

Bring her

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

name americophile for the fact that I know that the weight of gunpowder

no better artillery phobia

[DIMS]

I, my friend, gave 15 years of artillery. I know that twice two is equal to three to five.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Kars

what then lie in the USSR / Russian 2A46 that she has 350-450 rounds? Although she is smooth.

[Kars]

2A46M-1
2A46M-2
2А46М-4/2А46М-5

The Frenchman’s current was lowered by zhost in the CJSC read about 700

[Prohor]

The speed is just more amazing!
Kinetic energy is half the product of body mass by SQUARE of speed; the speed is 1,5 times higher — kinetic energy is 2,25 times higher (with the same mass).

[ward]

Hi ... I'm certainly not special, but if we take into account the powder ... and the Germans are traditionally stronger in chemistry, then probably a lot will become clearer ..

[Bad_gr]

And also take into account that our gunpowder is designed for use in frosts down to -50, and German is half as much, which simplifies the task of creating gunpowder with the necessary other parameters.

[Prohor]

No! As a specialist, I responsibly declare that all gunpowder is approximately the same in power, the differences are only in the dynamics of combustion, "in the exhaust" - the same thing. They have reached the limit of their development.

[DIMS]

Modern tank, such as Armata and Object 292 and MBT Hammer.
90 had big problems with an uninhabited tower, now it’s easier.

Well, these are tanks, not "unified artillery vehicles". They will be able to perform the functions of artillery extremely limited.

The dimensions of Abrams, and the total weight will be about 70 tons.

That is, it will be an ordinary tank with a 155-mm howitzer installed for some reason? What's the point? Isn’t it easier to create an 155 mm tank gun?

In general, the camera decides only the amount of charge that can be placed.

Not really, google "loading density"

the answer is nothing fundamental .. For the sake of interest, I looked at the initial speeds of Msta-B and D-81 with cumulative and OFS shells --- in the 920-940 mm wound per second. With the use of BPS that will be easier and have better aerodynamics, a significant increase in its speed is possible .

But what is the point of switching to a larger caliber if the projectile will fly at the same speed?

We consider the fundamental differences between modern long-barreled howitzers and cannons. And as you can see, the whole thing is only in the vertical aiming angles.

This is all good, of course. But the 2A36 is a cannon, not a "long-barreled howitzer", and therefore has the same drawbacks when firing at medium and long ranges as a tank gun

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Well, these are tanks, not "unified artillery vehicles". They will be able to perform the functions of artillery extremely limited

We will find out when something goes into the series, in the picture with Armata (type) the elevation angle is very large.

Quote: DIMS

That is, it will be an ordinary tank with a 155-mm howitzer installed for some reason? What's the point? Isn’t it easier to create an 155 mm tank gun?

Are you incapable of perceiving information? All the difference in angle in elevation. So with the installed 155 mm gun.

Quote: DIMS

Not really, google "loading density"

Absolutely, and I'm not going to google anything.

Quote: DIMS

But what is the point of switching to a larger caliber if the projectile will fly at the same speed?

In the mass of the projectile, and the speed will still be greater for the BPS.

Quote: DIMS

But the 2A36 is a cannon, not a "long-barreled howitzer"

So I say that the difference is only in the elevation angle, and so Geocint even has charges that are different in weight.

[DIMS]

We will find out when something goes into the series, in the picture with Armata (type) the elevation angle is very large.

Are you sure that this is a tank, not a BMPT with an 120-mm rifled gun?

Are you incapable of perceiving information? All the difference in angle in elevation. So with the installed 155 mm gun.

No such thing. By changing the maximum elevation angle you will not turn the howitzer into a cannon.

Absolutely, and I'm not going to google anything.

But in vain. For a propellant charge never Does not fill the entire charging chamber. And the tank gun has much less free space in the charging chamber than the howitzer

In the mass of the projectile, and the speed will still be greater for the BPS.

You forget that a heavier projectile loses its speed faster. And about BOPS and in general there is nothing to say, no effect without increasing the initial speed is not finished. So in this embodiment, the only effect will be a decrease in BC.

So I say that the difference is only in the elevation angle, and so Geocint even has charges that are different in weight.

It has a more flat trajectory of the projectile. And the elevation angle of the "Genocide" is more than 45 degrees, which means it, like a howitzer, can use mortar fire. But it remains a cannon.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Are you sure that this is a tank, not a BMPT with an 120-mm rifled gun?

As for not BMPT sure

Quote: DIMS

By changing the maximum elevation angle you will not turn the howitzer into a cannon

For what reason? Conduct a mental experiment --- take Slamer here and reduce his elevation angle to + 14 degrees --- what will it be? Mortira? Howitzer? Cannon?

Quote: DIMS

For a propellant charge never fills the entire charging chamber. And the tank gun has much less free space in the charging chamber than the howitzer

And what of this? If there is a standard percentage of filling, then increasing or decreasing the volume of the charging chamber will also proportionally change the mass of the charge.
can you give data on the free space? It’s just interesting how it differs. Especially for guns with unitary loading, although by the way the English tank gun has a separate-cap.

Quote: DIMS

So in this embodiment, the only effect will be a decrease in BC.

And so it goes, it was 100-105 mm, it became 120-125 mm and the ammunition load decreased.

Quote: DIMS

You forget that a heavier projectile loses its speed faster

For the OFS, this does not matter, they shoot at 50 km and nothing. But the effect remains the same.

Quote: DIMS

And about BOPS and in general there is nothing to say, no effect without increasing the initial speed is not finished.

I wonder why then they try to make them out of heavy metals? The aluminum speed would be faster. Yes, and in principle, the 152 mm BOPS would have greater armor penetration.
I have a plate with the penetration ability of BPS from Kholyavskog. the truth is for 140 mm and that's what they write
Prospective 140 mm BPS 700 mm
125 mm 400 mm

Quote: DIMS

It has a more flat trajectory of the projectile. And the elevation angle of the "Genocide" is more than 45 degrees, which means it, like a howitzer, can use mortar fire

Geocint - gun + 57
Msta Howitzer + 70

[DIMS]

For what reason? Conduct a mental experiment --- take Slamer here and reduce his elevation angle to + 14 degrees --- what will it be? Mortira? Howitzer? Cannon?

Howitzer with insufficient elevation

And what of this? If there is a standard percentage of filling, then increasing or decreasing the volume of the charging chamber will also proportionally change the mass of the charge.

No, because this value changes during the design of the gun, depending on the purpose and the required velocity of the projectile.

can you give data on the free space? It’s just interesting how it differs. Especially for guns with unitary loading, although by the way the English tank gun has a separate-cap.

As far as I remember, the filling coefficient is 0.2-0.6 for howitzers and 0,6-0,8 for tank guns. In the shells of the shells of unitary loading there is a lot of free space

I wonder why then they are trying to make them from heavy metals?

Well, all that needs to be done is to weight the BOPS instead of increasing the caliber? The output speeds are the same.

Geocint - gun + 57
Msta Howitzer + 70

Is it all the same? I hope you understand that when the elevation angle is roughly more than 45 degrees, the shooting becomes mortar — that is, with increasing elevation angle the range decreases?

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Howitzer with insufficient elevation

For what reasons will it remain a howitzer?

Quote: DIMS

No, because this value changes during the design of the gun, depending on the purpose and the necessary velocity of the projectile

in simpler terms, the argument you have made does not matter.

Quote: DIMS

For the propelling charge never fills the entire charging chamber

Quote: DIMS

As far as i remember

As far as I remember --- does not work.

Quote: DIMS

In the shells of the shells of unitary loading there is a lot of free space

How many?

Quote: DIMS

Do you understand that when the elevation angle is roughly more than 45 degrees, the shooting becomes mortar - that is, with increasing elevation angle the range decreases?

Then why are they howitzers and guns, and not mortars?

[DIMS]

For what reasons will it remain a howitzer?

Due to the hinged path

in simpler terms, the argument you have made does not matter.

Simply put, you have not figured this out.

As far as I remember --- does not pass

Do not like it, please provide your data, according to which the charging chamber of the howitzer is no different from the charging chamber of the gun.

How many?

Disassemble, see.

Then why are they howitzers and guns, and not mortars?

The last mortars, specialized tools for mortar shooting, rested in a Bose after the Second World War. One of the last representatives is the German 21-cm Mrs. 18, produced from 1936 to 1941

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Simply put, you have not figured this out.

it's about you

Quote: DIMS

Disassemble - see

Simply put, you don’t have information

Quote: DIMS

Due to the hinged path

This pearl gives you the right to call you completely incompetent.
The hinged trajectory of the gun with an elevation of + 14 degrees. The initial velocity of the gun is approximately the same with the Geocint gun

artillery shooting at elevation angles from 20 to 45 ° (the trajectory is steep, typical of howitzers and howitzer guns). It is used to perform various fire missions, including the destruction of defensive structures.

[DIMS]

Dear, you do not understand the elementary.

You have no idea about the loading density, you are sure that the charging chamber is completely filled with gunpowder (for your information, the gun in this case, if it doesn’t break, it will completely disable)

With the next adjustment, gunpowder no longer entered the sleeve. They offered to put an additional 4 (!!!) kilograms of gunpowder into a separate cap, but one of our military customers, he said, would be shocked and everything would fit. They began to shake, first on the machine, then they peeled until they turned blue with a wooden mallet. Settled down. Reinforced lid-wad did not fit - put two ordinary ones and sent to heat. I'm to this lieutenant colonel, but what about the loading density? The answer was simple - do not be clever! Luminium! (Do you know a joke?). When fired, the combustion turned into detonation - the charge exploded, the copper columns of the crusher devices turned into a cake, the pressure was not determined, the sleeve was inflated, it was not extracted, the axis of the cranks deformed, the wedge did not open, a major accident happened. But after this incident, my authority has grown.

http://forum.guns.ru/forum/42/2.html

I don’t know what the projectile flight paths are (and what’s most interesting, don’t even try to watch it on the Internet)

[Kars]

Do you laugh again?
How does this prove your words?
and the picture just proves that at 14 degrees a flat path.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

that the charging chamber is completely filled with gunpowder

PS I know that this is not a gun’s charging chamber

[DIMS]

And why did you shove the telescopic munition here?

[DIMS]

Get fucked up, didn’t you understand that this is an ordinary scheme, not related to any particular weapon?

Let's google what a direct shot range is.
Well, for a 2A46 tank gun, it amounts to 2 m for a target 2120 meters high, for a D-30 howitzer, also with a crowbar and for the same 2-meter target, 850 meters.
Now you understand the difference between a howitzer and a gun, and how do their trajectories differ?

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Let's google what a direct shot range is.

no need

Quote: DIMS

Well, for the 2A46 tank gun, it is 2 m - 2120 m high for the target, for the D-30 howitzer, also scrap and for the same 2-meter target - 850 meters

Do you know that they have different speeds?

Quote: DIMS

Now you understand the difference between a howitzer and a gun, and how do their trajectories differ?

And we are talking about specific guns, howitzers with a long barrel 52 caliber, and the same initial speed.

Quote: Kars

and what will the tank 152-155 mm gun be different from the guns presented for example, sdes (slammer)? Here the name is howitzer --- most of all because of the large elevation angle. And a variable charge is only a plus

Quote: DIMS

Why did you shove the telescopic munition here?

And the upper one, what does not suit you?

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

2A46 it is for a target 2 m high - 2120 m, for a howitzer D-30, also with a crowbar and for the same 2-meter target - 850 meters.

Will come to enlighten you
Howitzer - 38 calibers, (by the way I do not observe scrap in BC) OFS 690
A46 gun --- 48 calibers --- OFS 760
Count the direct shot?

[DIMS]

"Scrap" is called BP-1. You are watching poorly
Think? They haven’t offered me anything more stupid.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Scrap "is called BP-1.

Maybe a kint link.

Quote: DIMS

Think? They haven’t offered me anything more stupid.

Of course, everything is stupid for you.

Quote: DIMS

Bingo, finally it began to reach you. The difference is in speeds

So she vet the same speed. and not bingo - but you had to bring it a long time.

Quote: Kars

And the trajectory in your opinion depends on what? Is it not from the elevation angles, the length of the trunk initial speed?

Quote: DIMS

A cannon, a howitzer cannon, a howitzer cannon and a howitzer are different guns that differ in the trajectories available to them. For example, a cannon, shooting at home at medium range, will hit him in the wall, and a howitzer in the roof.

Are you frostbite?
We do not have a general theory but specifics ---

Quote: Kars

and what will be the tank 152-155 mm gun different from the guns presented for example here(slammer)? Here the name is howitzer --- most of around the corner elevations.

Quote: DIMS

And what should the top prove?

That the maximum amount of space was used for the powder charge, and not 0.6 -0.8 in any way (although of course the gaps remain, and nobody rams like in your example. Therefore, if the chamber is 10 liters, then more gunpowder will be placed there than in the chamber in 8 liters.

[DIMS]

Of course, everything is stupid for you.

And you yourself calculate. Or at least give a formula. Normal people use shooting tables for this, which I don’t have.

Maybe a kint link

Are your hands dry? Armor-piercing subcaliber rotating BP-1

So she vet the same speed. and not bingo - but you had to bring it a long time.

It’s wet on Coke, start over. We assume that you do not have enough theoretical training.

Are you frostbite?

No, these are reinforced concrete facts. And in general, read at your leisure, why before the First World War howitzers were developed, and how the hinged trajectory was achieved in them

That the maximum amount of space was used for the powder charge, and not 0.6 -0.8 in any way (although of course the gaps remain, and nobody rams like in your example. Therefore, if the chamber is 10 liters, then more gunpowder will be placed there than in the chamber in 8 liters.

Are you sure that the photo shows a charging chamber?

Therefore, if the chamber is 10 liters, then more gunpowder will be placed there than in the chamber in 8 liters.

Yes, but not a single idiot will fill the charging chamber completely.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

And you yourself calculate

I didn’t finish art school.

Quote: Kars

Howitzer - 38 calibers, (by the way I do not observe scrap in BC) OFS 690
A46 gun --- 48 calibers --- OFS 760

I already see that the difference will be much smaller than 850 and 2120 meters.

Quote: DIMS

Armor-piercing armor-piercing rotating BP-1

Is it in the D-30 howitzer ammunition? And what is its initial speed (maximum?)

Quote: DIMS

We assume that you do not have enough theoretical training.

We will assume that you are unable to read, and have narrow thinking.
and I possess a sufficient degree of theory.

Quote: DIMS

No, this is reinforced concrete facts.

Clear business freeze.

Quote: DIMS

there is a huge difference between a tank gun and a self-propelled gun howitzer

Quote: Kars

and what will the tank 152-155 mm gun be different from the guns presented for example, sdes (slammer)?

But it perfectly characterizes you.

Quote: DIMS

Are you sure that the photo shows a charging chamber?

)))) he said you can’t read

Quote: Kars

PS I know that this is not a gun’s charging chamber

Quote: DIMS

Yes, but no idiot will fill the charging chamber completely

Give where I wrote that it will be filled in 100%

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Armor-piercing armor-piercing rotating BP-1

Quote: DIMS

I, my friend, gave 15 years of artillery. I know that twice two is equal to three to five.

It can be seen

starting speed cumulative BPN rotating shell1, m / s 740

[DIMS]

Maybe the index was wrong. But I remember for sure that the D-30 has cumulative shells BK6 and BK13. Easy to remember, six and a damn dozen.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Maybe the index was wrong

So there are sub-caliber shells in the D-30 BC or not?

Cumulative projectile ZBK12 has an initial velocity of 905 m / s. Direct Shot Range - 960 meters

Quote: DIMS

for the D-30 howitzer, also crowbar and for the same 2 meter target, 850 meters.

Change scrap to

Quote: DIMS

cumulative rotating projectile BP1, m / s 740

And do not solve any equations.
On the other hand, your attempt to falsify the facts is clearly visible by taking the data of the Sub-Caliber opera shell and the Caliber Caliber. And as you can see when using similar ammunition, the data are very similar. But they are not very different.

в

[DIMS]

Was exactly. 122 mm scrap. In our office on "chemistry, gunpowder and explosives" was. In the context. Together with the prohibited 3SH1 and 3SH3.
Is he now in service? It is hardly ineffective.

Well, of course, you don’t need to solve the equations, if this does not fit into your scheme

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Was exactly. 122 mm scrap.

So give it a mention? With an initial speed and a direct shot. It is only strange that the T-10 tank with 122 mm D-25 had no sub-caliber in the ammunition, but they did for the howitzer. Although then there was 3БМ11

Quote: DIMS

Of course you don’t have to decide

Are you not happy with the numbers?
tank gun direct shot - 960
in a howitzer with a shorter barrel 850

[DIMS]

What shell?

[DIMS]

I didn’t finish art school.

But do you know how to solve differential equations? For a long time, of course, but you will know the range of a direct shot.

I already see that the difference will be much smaller than 850 and 2120 meters.

That is, you decided all the same?

[DIMS]

Bingo, finally it began to reach you. The difference is in speeds. And in different trajectories associated with this. Everything else is the barrel length, the available elevation angle is all secondary.

A cannon, a howitzer cannon, a howitzer cannon and a howitzer are different guns that differ in the trajectories available to them. For example, a cannon, shooting at home at medium range, will hit him in the wall, and a howitzer in the roof.

And what should the top prove?

[ad3wsafdf]

The authorities of our country have done a lot, but this is already too much.
I generally accidentally found him http://xurl.es/poisksng
Here is information about each of us, for example: relatives, friends, correspondence from social networks.
And most importantly, it is accessible to everyone, I was really scared at first - you never know what moron there will climb
Well, the truth is that you can delete all

[DIMS]

In short, to end the blunt transfusion from empty to empty, install a 152 mm howitzer on the tank.
1. Get rid of the muzzle brake. We do not need additional dust, which unmasks and interferes with observation.
2. We change the charging chamber — higher loading density, higher pressure, it must withstand this. We will apply new, more expensive materials.
3. Change the grooves in the trunk: the angle between them and the axis of the barrel channel should be less — the speed is higher. Also, the trunk should become stronger.
4. We put another, more effective ejector.
5. We will install new, much more effective recoil devices in order to compensate for the absence of a muzzle brake while increasing the initial velocity of the projectile.
6 The new balancing, otherwise the stabilizer will not cope with such a bandura.

And what remains of the original howitzer? Nothing, actually. This will be a brand new 152 mm caliber tank gun.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

install xnumx mm howitzer on the tank

Add to the BPOS BC.
We remove the muzzle brake, optimize recoil devices. (Although it is very possible that the muzzle brake can be left)

That's all.

[DIMS]

That is, you agree to a barrel resource of 50-100 shots? The loss of speed due to the large angle of the rifling? To gas contamination? On the inefficient operation of the stabilizer?
Optimize POW will not work, only new ones.

And yet, why are you uploading this whole photo with a new smooth-bore tank gun?

[Kars]

[quote = DIMS] That is, do you agree to the barrel resource in 50-100 shots? [/ quote]
Will it be standard as with self-propelled guns [quote = DIMS] To lose speed due to the large angle of the rifling? [/ Quote]
the gun is already optimized for maximum speed. And an increase is achieved for BOPS due to a lighter projectile. [quote = DIMS] To gas pollution [/ quote]
What was the gas pollution in the self-propelled guns and its full-time ejector and barrel blowdown could not cope? [Quote = DIMS]
[quote = DIMS] On the inefficient operation of the stabilizer? [/ quote]
The stabilizer belongs to the tower [quote = DIMS] And yet, what are you [/ quote]
152 mm

[DIMS]

Why it will be full-time, you are going to remove BOPS from its ammunition?

the gun is already optimized for maximum speed

Of course. But the howitzer is optimized for low speeds, at which it is necessary to give the shell sufficient rotation

And the increase is achieved for BOPS due to a lighter projectile

I will repeat your words "From aluminum?" In addition, you have not forgotten that in the bore, the BOPS accelerates along with the pallet, which must be either more powerful, or made of expensive high-strength materials, so that it does not fall apart right there.

Tower stabilizer

And balancing to the gun.

152 mm

But not with a howitzer, but with a freshly developed smooth-bore tank gun. There was a second option - the creation of a rifled at the Research Institute "Petrel". But no one about installing a howitzer, for example 2A64
By the way, read the article, very interesting:
http://topwar.ru/15750-obekt-292-novoe-orudie-dlya-t-80.html

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Of course. But the howitzer is optimized for low speeds, at which it is necessary to give the shell sufficient rotation

It is clear that for you 15 years of military training have not passed in vain. There is in mind the guns mounted on the slammer and self-propelled guns Donar.

Quote: DIMS

"Aluminum?"

And from it, too, from the same materials that are made of the 120-125 mm shells.

Quote: DIMS

And balancing to the gun

I’m thinking about this. The main thing is that you would not begin to argue that balancing mechanisms affect the path along the vertical alignment angles. And in principle, they will be easier if the elevation angle decreases on the tank. By the way, the perspective tank would have an elevation angle like a howitzer --- but I don’t pretend to shoot straight off at angles over 14 degrees.

Quote: DIMS

But not with a howitzer, but with a freshly developed smoothbore tank gun

Are you stupid again? All the difference is only in elevation angles. They are not exactly saying that the most limited people are military.

Quote: Kars

Quote: Kars
and what will the tank 152-155 mm gun be different from the guns presented for example, sdes (slammer)? Here the name is howitzer --- most of all because of the large elevation angle.

therefore, the best option is to install the Donar tank tower art system. If at the same time the Udos maintain elevation angles this will be only a plus, especially in urban battles.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

By the way, read the article, very interesting:
http://topwar.ru/15750-obekt-292-novoe-orudie-dlya-t-80.html

You don’t know how to read)))))))))))

Quote: Kars

152,4 millimeter has been selected. Of all those mastered in production, it was optimal in terms of the ratio of power, power, dimensions and mass of the gun. However, it took some time to argue about the type of gun. First supporters of rifled guns won.

Quote: Kars

And again I recommend to look --- for the design of a promising tank gun of the caliber 152 mm, a rifled diagram was taken --- and this is not after Internet correspondence. And after research - http: //topwar.ru/15750-obekt-292-novoe -orudie-dlya-t-80.html

[DIMS]

Dear, why did you miss the main thing - that the new gun was being developed, and not the existing howitzer or gun?

[DIMS]

It is clear that for you 15 years of military training have not passed in vain. There is in mind the guns mounted on the slammer and self-propelled guns Donar.

And how are they fundamentally different? Exceptionally at full charge they beat in order to quickly replace the barrel and lower accuracy?

And from it, too, from the same materials that are made of the 120-125 mm shells.

Have you forgotten about the pallet? In addition, why reduce mass and, accordingly, kinetic energy? In addition, this can be done on existing calibers. But they don’t do it, silly, probably, heavy depleted uranium with tungsten is shoved

I think it’s okay.

Do you know how they handle this? Increasing the size and power of the stabilizer actuators. An easier balancing redistribution.

Are you stupid again? All the difference is only in elevation angles. They are not exactly saying that the most limited people are military.

You have obvious reading problems.

Nevertheless, the engineers again recounted all the parameters of the necessary guns, selected the necessary grades of metal and began work on the creation of an experimental gun.

Therefore, the best option is to install the Donar tank tower art system.

Which during installation will turn into a freshly developed tank gun that has no relation to the original howitzer

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

And how are they fundamentally different?

the initial speed is greater than that of Geocint and greater range. Although there is a geocint-gun, and they are considered howitzers. And we would from KVO.

Quote: DIMS

About the pallet did not forget

Quote: Kars

from it, too, from the same materials that are made of loin 120-125 mm shells

Quote: DIMS

In addition, why reduce mass and, accordingly, kinetic energy?

Want 50 kg BPS?

125-mm smooth gun D-81.
Weight of sabot projectile - 5,7 kg;
The mass of the cumulative projectile - 18 kg;
Mass of high-explosive fragmentation projectile - 24,4 kg;

So it will be about the same ratio and 152 mm guns.

Quote: DIMS

In addition, this can be done on existing calibers. But they don’t do it, silly, probably, heavy depleted uranium with tungsten is shoved

Yes, you don’t have any logic, weight reduction compared to the OFS shells in the Donar ammunition.

Quote: DIMS

You have obvious reading problems.

You have big ones.

Quote: DIMS

Which during installation will turn into a freshly developed tank gun that has no relation to the original howitzer

)))))))))))))) Yes, severe, we can say a clinical case.
will have the same ballistics, ammunition, control system, in general, the story with A-19 / D-25T will be repeated

[ward]

Hi, how are you ... We’re fighting ... Our win at volleyball ... Hop ...

[DIMS]

initial velocity greater than that of Geocint

Verbally.
In addition, as in Russia, and throughout the world, they shoot from it at the minimum charge necessary for the required range. That is, rifling there is optimized for shooting at 5-15 km.

So it will be about the same ratio and 152 mm guns.

Namely, But cheat that the mass of BOPS compared with the 125-mm will increase, not decrease.

You have big ones.

And this is written by a person who "did not see" in the article that a special tank gun was developed for object 292.

Yes, a severe case of a clinical case.
will have the same ballistics, ammunition, control system

Of all of the above, you will only have a high-explosive fragmentation shell. and partly, it will replace the fuse
The ballistics will change for sure, and the control system is even more so.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Verbally.
In addition, as in Russia, and throughout the world, they shoot from it at the minimum charge necessary for the required range. That is, rifling there is optimized for shooting at 5-15 km

)))))))))))) thanks laugh
Geacint-30 km at maximum charge and speed 940 m / s
Donar --40 km ------ since you know (probably you brought the nameplate) that they shoot at the maximum range at an angle of 45 degrees --- will you say without a word that he has a lower projectile speed?

Quote: DIMS

Namely, But cheat that the mass of BOPS compared with the 125-mm will increase, not decrease.

Again reading problems?

Quote: Kars

125-mm smooth gun D-81.
Weight of sabot projectile - 5,7 kg;
The mass of the cumulative projectile - 18 kg;
Mass of high-explosive fragmentation projectile - 24,4 kg;


So it will be about the same ratio and 152 mm guns.
Quote: DIMS
In addition, this can be done on existing calibers. But they don’t do it, silly, probably, heavy depleted uranium with tungsten is shoved
Yes, you don’t have logic, weight reduction compared to the OFS shells in the Donar ammunition

I haven’t said anywhere that it will be lighter than 125 mm bops and even

Quote: Kars

But what is the point of switching to a larger caliber if the projectile will fly at the same speed?
In the mass of the projectile, and the speed will still be greater for BPS

Quote: DIMS

Of all of the above, you will only have a high-explosive fragmentation shell. and partly, it will replace the fuse
The ballistics will change for sure, and the control system is even more so.

Once again he laughed)))))))))))))))) Especially in the USSR when ballistics in guns passed like a passing banner.
well at least that’s said .. a competent .. specialist who has seen a D-30 howitzer shell for a howitzer.

[Bad_gr]

If the memory serves me right, the British sub-caliber projectile has a specific design: during acceleration in the barrel, a special ring rotates while cutting, but allows you not to twist the projectile itself. In other words, the Challenger sub-caliber is stabilized in the air due to its own plumage, and not due to the rotation obtained from cutting the trunk.
In addition, for a cumulative projectile, rotation is the same, not a plus.

This is to say that regardless of the caliber, the main tank shells require a smooth barrel and therefore, perspective tanks will most likely have a smooth barrel.
An exception may be, perhaps, Merkava, who mainly uses shooting from the maximum possible distances, which is more inherent in self-propelled guns.

[Prohor]

Rotation for the COP is not just "not a plus", but a huge minus!
So:
- the speed of the BPS of the rifled gun does not catch up with the analog of the smoothbore
- at the same time, you still have to think very hard with the design of the shell,
- cumulative projectile loses armor penetration,
- ATGM can not be launched through the rifled barrel,
- the rifled barrel itself is much more difficult to manufacture,
- firing accuracy of a smoothbore gun at ranges of the tank is not very inferior to rifled,
for hell, one asks, a goat button accordion, and a rifled cannon for a tank ?!

[DIMS]

)))))))))))) thanks laugh
Geacint-30 km at maximum charge and speed 940 m / s
Donar --40 km ------ as you know

You made me laugh. Compare the range with a conventional projectile from the Soviet cannon and the range of a long-range projectile with the bottom gas generator from the Israeli. By the way, "Genocide" also shoots ARS at 40 km.

Again reading problems?

No, the problem is that you yourself forget about what you write.

Once again he laughed)))))))))))))))) Especially in the USSR when ballistics in guns passed like a passing banner.
well at least that’s said .. a competent .. specialist who has seen a D-30 howitzer shell for a howitzer.

And because the tank control system will cease to be radically different from the self-propelled gun control system?
And therefore, the ballistics will not change when optimizing the barrel for direct fire at high initial speeds?
And so can a tank gun fire a line of ammunition available for self-propelled guns?

You do not have to laugh, but cry from your own ignorance.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Israeli shell with a bottom gas generator

then on xnumx km

Quote: DIMS

No, the problem is that you yourself forget about what you write.

Quote: DIMS

No, the problem is that you yourself forget about what you write.

Quote: DIMS

And because the tank control system will cease to be radically different from the self-propelled gun control system?

Look at the donor control system --- until it’s still tank grow

Quote: DIMS

And therefore, the ballistics will not change when optimizing the barrel for direct fire at high initial speeds?

Why? They are already optimized for high initial speeds

Quote: DIMS

And so can a tank gun fire a line of ammunition available for self-propelled guns?

Of course. If a tank from a self-propelled gun is installed on the tank

Quote: DIMS

You don’t have to laugh, but cry from your own ignorance

compared with you --- I’m scared about the training system in military schools ---- there you have to start developing your thinking. otherwise they wrote --- as if the sau cannot fire direct fire.

And the question of BPS to the howitzer d-30 I see you are trying to hang?

[DIMS]

then on xnumx km

What is 56? Please indicate the maximum range when firing a conventional projectile, but we do not compare whose ARS is better.

Look at the donor control system --- until it’s still tank grow

What specifically?

Why? They are already optimized for high initial speeds

They are optimized for their main purpose - shooting at medium ranges at medium speeds and minimum charges. This is what they do all over the world, developing howitzers.

Of course. If a tank from a self-propelled gun is installed on the tank

Not only a gun, but also a tower. To provide the necessary elevation angle. The design of the tank such feints are not provided.

compared with you --- I’m scared about the training system in military schools ---- there you have to start developing your thinking. otherwise they wrote --- as if the sau cannot fire direct fire.

Self-propelled guns fire direct fire, they just have a direct firing range less. The rest is your fantasies about what I think.

and the question of BPS to the D-30 howitzer I see you're trying to suspend

Raise your eyes higher, I already answered this question. Or I can copy-paste from there, because you tend not only to mine, but also to forget your posts.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

we do not compare whose ARS is better.

OF-29 945 m --28.5
NATO 30-32 km
while NATO howitzer and a hyacinth cannon with a longer barrel for two calibers.
And if I bring Mstu here, it will be generally embarrassing.

Quote: DIMS

What specifically?

First of all, an uninhabited tower, everything is controlled by automation.

Quote: DIMS

They are optimized for their main purpose - shooting at medium ranges at medium speeds and minimum charges. This is how they do it all over the world, developing howitzers

Again rave? Can you give evidence to your own words? Especially nowadays a bitter counter-battery struggle? It is a quote or article that confirms your idea.

Quote: DIMS

Not only a gun, but also a tower. To provide the necessary elevation angle

We generally agreed on 14 degrees (90 is my wish)

Quote: DIMS

Self-propelled guns fire direct fire, they just have a direct firing range less

WHY? If they have the same speed? I already ridiculed your attempt to lie using the comparison of BPS and Kummulyativa.

Quote: DIMS

Raise your eyes higher, I already answered this question. Or I copy-paste from there, because you tend not only to mine, but also to forget your posts

Quote: DIMS

Maybe the index was wrong. But I remember for sure that the D-30 has cumulative shells BK6 and BK13.

Quote: DIMS

Was exactly. 122 mm scrap. In our office on "chemistry, gunpowder and explosives" stood

Highlighted in red, otherwise I look, you forget what to write about.

[Kars]

how an experienced artilleryman tell me the angle? and the type of shooting?

[DIMS]

Live entertainment.

[DIMS]

OF-29 945 m --28.5
NATO 30-32 km

Horror, as much as one and a half to two and a half kilometers further !!! What do you think, but this is not due to the fact that the "Genocide" shell is 2 kg heavier with a penny?

First of all, an uninhabited tower, everything is controlled by automation.

Manual shooting is possible, which means the tower is inhabited. But it is not important. The fact is that control systems are fundamentally different because of the fundamental differences between firing tasks. For self-propelled guns - according to the coordinates of the target, for a tank according to the target observed.

Again rave? Can you give evidence to your own words? Especially nowadays a bitter counter-battery struggle? It is a quote or article that confirms your idea.

The greater the range, the less accuracy. Therefore, they try not to shoot at maximum ranges.
The higher the trajectory, the lower the accuracy. Because they shoot the least charge.
The more powerful the charge, the less the barrel’s life. Because they fire the smallest shell
The further the battery is from the line of contact with the enemy, the fewer targets can be hit in the depths of the enemy, and this contradicts the American strategy of "fighting the second echelons" and similar to ours. And therefore the battery is located 3-5 km away. from the line of contact
The farther the battery, the less it will be able to support the combined arms in the offensive and the associated interruption in shooting. Therefore, sometimes before the onset of the battery put closer than 3 km.

And since it turns out that most targets will be located at a distance of 5-15 km, the guns will be optimized at these ranges.

To counteract counter-battery fighting by removing artillery from the enemy at the greatest possible distance, they stopped even in World War I. There are much more effective methods that do not reduce the combat capabilities of firing units.

WHY? If they have the same speed?

Even in your version, at the same speed, the difference in the range of a direct shot is 12%; It's a lot.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Horror, as much as one and a half to two and a half kilometers further !!! What do you think, but this is not due to the fact that the "Genocide" shell is 2 kg heavier with a penny?

It covers with a copper basin all your theories about hinged, lay-on tpectoriums of modern howitzer guns. About weight, who knows - but his barrel is longer. And shoots closer than a howitzer.

Quote: DIMS

For self-propelled guns - according to the coordinates of the target, for a tank according to the target observed.

Which also has coordinates. And do not artificially underestimate the capabilities of a promising tank.

Quote: DIMS

The greater the range, the less accuracy. Therefore, they try not to shoot at maximum ranges.

A QUO of less than 5 meters is impressive.

Quote: DIMS

And since it turns out that most targets will be located at a distance of 5-15 km, the guns will be optimized at these ranges.

I don’t see quotes. And if you talk about 5-15 km, explain why I’m doing active rockets? Why so much effort?

Quote: DIMS

To counteract counter-battery fighting by removing artillery from the enemy at the greatest possible distance, they stopped even in World War I. There are much more effective methods that do not reduce the combat capabilities of firing units

Bullshit. Counter-battery work consists in reacting as quickly as possible to data from radars like the Zoo, to the maximum possible range. And the range allows you to fire at targets over a larger area. And it will be offensive if you can not finish off the enemy artillery.

Quote: DIMS

Even in your version, at the same speed, the difference in the range of a direct shot is 12%; It's a lot

In which version? Comparisons of the Tank gun and the old howitzer D-30?
This is not my option, but yours, on which you are caught. My version is a Hyacinth-54-gun and Rheinmetall L52 155 mm-howitzer.

[DIMS]

It covers with a copper basin all your theories about hinged, lay-on tpectoriums of modern howitzer guns. About weight, who knows - but his barrel is longer. And shoots closer than a howitzer.

Absolutely does not cover. For the ultimate range is not an indicator.

Which also has coordinates. And do not artificially underestimate the capabilities of a promising tank.

This is called engine overhaul through the exhaust pipe. Why calculate the coordinates of the target, which is visible in the sight?

A QUO of less than 5 meters is impressive.

It can, of course, be impressive if you do not know that the concept of "KVO" is not used in artillery. For errors and scattering do not fit into a circle, but into an ellipse.

I don’t see quotes. And if you talk about 5-15 km, explain why I’m doing active rockets? Why so much effort?

Are you lacking in common sense? And as for the efforts, how will you fight against the goals in depth? How to beat on columns with suitable reserves? For control points and other things? By air defense in the end? Oh yes, you drove your artillery 40 km from the front end; you have to send aviation into battle. If not busy.

Bullshit. Counter-battery work consists in reacting as quickly as possible to data from radars like the Zoo, to the maximum possible range. And the range allows you to fire at targets over a larger area. And it will be offensive if you can not finish off the enemy artillery.

I definitely won’t be able to finish off the enemy’s artillery if I leave mine to the utmost range — I can only pinch their front edge.

Counter-batteries are now counteracted by the dispersal of vehicles at large distances from each other and by changing positions after a firing raid. But not by increasing the distance from the enemy

My version is Hyacinth - a 54-caliber gun and Rheinmetall L52 155 mm - howitzer

Please give your option. What are their direct shot ranges ?.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Absolutely does not cover. For the ultimate range is not an indicator.

It covers, covers. The limiting range here is needed only to determine the initial speed.

Quote: DIMS

Why calculate the coordinates of the target, which is visible in the sight

If you can see the sight, then as you saw on the video, you can shoot like that.

Quote: DIMS

It can, of course, be impressive if you do not know that the concept of "KVO" is not used in artillery. For errors and scattering do not fit into a circle, but into an ellipse.

Circular, ellipsoidal.

Quote: DIMS

Are you lacking in common sense?

You and common sense are not compatible, sorry.

Quote: DIMS

And as for the efforts, how will you fight against the goals in depth?

Wow, you already forgot what you wrote, so I’ll remind

Quote: DIMS

And since it turns out that most targets will be located at a distance of 5-15 km, the guns will be optimized at these ranges.

And here on you, from nowhere and depth, and air defense systems.

Quote: DIMS

Oh yes, you drove your artillery 40 km from the front end, you have to send aviation into battle

I drove a quote to the studio. And still give me some quotes about long-range guns and 152 mm howitzers on the front end.

Quote: DIMS

I definitely won’t be able to finish off the enemy artillery if I leave mine to the maximum range

I don’t understand if you were drunk when someone sent artillery somewhere?
AS for the stupid, --- let's say there is a front line, you set your artillery 10 km away from it, and you can shoot 30 km, i.e. 20 on a different line, and the enemy put artillery 21 km from the line, and at the same time it can destroy you, but you do not. But this is an ABSTRACT example. Do not bother yourself.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Counter-batteries are now counteracted by the dispersal of vehicles at large distances from each other and by changing positions after a firing raid. But not by increasing the distance from the enemy

And how will they be able to crush the enemy with this? Which also changes its position by the way.
All the same, give me some external source of your wisdom, otherwise the memories of the BPS for the D-30 still bother me.

Quote: DIMS

Please give your option. What are their direct shot ranges ?.

Bigger than a Hyacinth gun.

[DIMS]

And how will they be able to crush the enemy with this? Which also changes its position by the way.

No way. Only if the enemy bursts

All the same, give me some external source of your wisdom, otherwise the memories of the BPS for the D-30 still bother me.

And I am worried about the charging chamber, completely filled with gunpowder, and the rest of your pearls. But I don’t mention them in every post.

Bigger than a Hyacinth gun.

How many meters?

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

And I'm worried about the charging chamber, completely filled with gunpowder

Give a quote about this as I do it for you.

Quote: DIMS

Was exactly. 122 mm scrap.

Quote: DIMS

Are your hands dry? Armor-piercing subcaliber rotating BP-1

Quote: DIMS

But I don’t mention them in every post.

It would be something to mention.

Quote: DIMS

How many meters?

And how much does a hyacinth have a direct shot? What is it called a gun.

[DIMS]

It covers, covers. The limiting range here is needed only to determine the initial speed.

In an airless space. And in zero gravity.

If you can see the sight, then as you saw on the video, you can shoot like that.

Not possible, but necessary. And sighting tanks are exactly for this purpose.

Circular, ellipsoidal.

No difference?? Well, of course. Yes, on the drum, a lot of shells.
5 meters in the direction - possibly 5 meters in the range - fantastic

Wow, you already forgot what you wrote, so I’ll remind

We must think that you forgot. They asked why efforts to increase the range, replied that to hit targets in depth. But I’m sorry, I wrote in Russian that most targets will be located at a distance of 5-15 km. The meaning of the Russian word "most"Do you understand?
Or give a link to an explanatory dictionary?

I drove? Quote to the studio

And who about the counter-battery ache when I said that howitzers are optimized for medium-range shooting, I understand you. Quotes? Search in BUASV, the second part. For you, I can’t download it.

AS for the stupid, --- let's say there is a front line, you set your artillery 10 km away from it, and you can shoot 30 km, i.e. 20 on a different line, and the enemy put artillery 21 km from the line, and at the same time it can destroy you, but you do not. But this is an ABSTRACT example. Do not bother yourself.

As for the most intelligent, I will put the battery as it should, in three to five. So that later my infantry would not hit my face for hitting them. And the most interesting thing is that the enemy will do the same. So your smartest example is completely off topic

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

In an airless space. And in zero gravity.

Surely drunk. The guns shoot under the same conditions.

Quote: DIMS

Not possible, but necessary. And sighting tanks are exactly for this purpose.

not just a tank.

Quote: DIMS

No difference?? Well, of course. Yes, on the drum, a lot of shells.
5 meters in the direction - possibly 5 meters in the range - fantastic

Your personal problems

Quote: DIMS

You. They asked why the efforts to increase the range - he replied that to hit targets in depth. But sorry, I wrote in Russian that most of the targets will be located at a distance of 5-15 km. Do you understand the meaning of the Russian word "majority"?

Most? Really? Why did you write this? If they are optimized for near goals, then they won’t fall on distant goals? Is that so? Or will they fall for all goals?

Quote: DIMS

And who about the counter-battery ache when I said that howitzers are optimized for firing at medium ranges, I understand you.

I already doubt that you can understand something. Therefore, just quotes. And nothing else is needed.

Quote: DIMS

in three to five. So that later my infantry would not beat my face for hitting them

They made laugh, especially about getting into their infantry.

Quote: DIMS

And the most interesting thing is that the enemy will also act

also it would not hurt to prove this with a quote, which is why the enemy will put the Tat close to his long-range artillery.

[DIMS]

Surely drunk. The guns shoot under the same conditions.

No, not drunk, it was you who badly taught physics at school, and after that you really tried to forget. It's elementary, try it yourself. It will be useful for self-education.

Your personal problems

You write nonsense, I voice it. And these are not my problems. By the way, according to your data, it turns out that the "KVO" of a conventional projectile is two times less than that of the controlled "Excalibur". In your opinion, the Americans and the British were foolishly toiling, creating a shell for 85 dollars

Most? Really? Why did you write this? If they are optimized for near goals, then they won’t fall on distant goals? Is that so? Or will they fall for all goals?

They will hit with different accuracy. and with different ammunition consumption. The tank can also fire with closed fire. But it is optimized for direct fire.
It’s elementary: calculate the range at which most targets will be and optimize the gun, in particular, take the necessary rifling angle. Is it really hard to understand?

I already doubt that you can understand something. Therefore, just quotes. And nothing else is needed.

And I begin to doubt that you understand that you write

They made laugh, especially about getting into their infantry.

Laugh with the fact that you do not know about the existence of dispersion of shells during firing, the greater the greater the range. And precisely because the greater the distance, the greater the opportunity to hook on those who are in direct contact with the enemy.

also it would not hurt to prove this with a quote, which is why the enemy will put the Tat close to his long-range artillery.

Give you a reference to the fact that the NATO military is not

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

It's elementary, try it yourself. It will be useful for self-education.

do they really have different gravitations. air resistance?

Quote: DIMS

According to your data, it turns out that the "KVO" of a conventional projectile is half that of a controlled "Excalibur.

Give your version of the CVO and with the link. The escalibur in theory should provide a direct hit.

Quote: DIMS

It’s elementary: calculate the range at which most targets will be and optimize the gun, in particular, take the necessary rifling angle. Is it really hard to understand?

Give a QUOTE or LINK to such a thing, and that’s all, nothing more is required of you.

Quote: DIMS

And I begin to doubt that you understand that you write

As I see, you didn’t understand, because you didn’t give a quote, which means it’s something from the BPS category for a howitzer.

Quote: DIMS

And precisely because the greater the distance, the greater the ability to hook on those who are in direct contact with the enemy

For example, in South African G3, dispersion at a distance of 39 is 900 meters.
And what will you have for 20 km?

Quote: DIMS

Give you a reference to the fact that the NATO military is not

What not? And give a link to a typical placement of self-propelled guns of class M-109 AC-90

[Kars]

Not G3 but G6

version of the "JBMOU" with a 23-liter charging chamber - meets NATO requirements for the unification of the "JBMOU" (Joint Ballistic Memorandum of Understanding). OFS firing range increased to 33 km, the base active-reactive OFS - 42 km, V-LAP (active-reactive OFS with improved aerodynamics) - 58 km; [1]
the Extended Range version with a 25-liter charging chamber is more long-range, but does not meet NATO requirements for unification of the JBMOU; OFS firing range increased to 38 km, base active-reactive OFS - 50 km, V-LAP (active-reactive OFS with improved aerodynamics) - 67 km.

here by the way the differences in the volume of the charging chambers.

[DIMS]

Have you forgotten again? Filling density.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Have you forgotten again? Filling density.

Me? You rave along the way

Quote: Kars

In general, the camera decides only the amount of charge that can be placed

Where did I mention the filling density? Also tell me that the South Africans increased the volume of the chamber so that there would be a smaller volume of gunpowder, the svass would become smaller.

Quote: DIMS

This is elementary, the higher the less.

It can be seen the artilleryman, the specialist ----- is it that they have such different trajectories when firing at the maximum distance? And why? If it’s not the angle, as we know, it means speed? The higher the initial speed, the farther the projectile will fly away, or not? (the angle is the same so you would not be embarrassed)

Quote: DIMS

Give a quote or link to the fact that howitzers mainly shoot at long ranges.

Mostly, why do you need this? They shoot at targets at any range within range --- and there is no mention of ... sharpening .. for short distances.
A link - you have to repeat yourself

Quote: Kars

version of the "JBMOU" with a 23-liter charging chamber - meets NATO requirements for the unification of the "JBMOU" (Joint Ballistic Memorandum of Understanding). OFS firing range increased to 33 km, the base active-reactive OFS - 42 km, V-LAP (active-reactive OFS with improved aerodynamics) - 58 km; [1]
the Extended Range version with a 25-liter charging chamber is more long-range, but does not meet NATO requirements for unification of the JBMOU; OFS firing range increased to 38 km, base active-reactive OFS - 50 km, V-LAP (active-reactive OFS with improved aerodynamics) - 67 km

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Is it already becoming a dumb tradition?

Well, you have to admit that you lied, and tried to falsify the facts by comparing 2140 and 850 m of direct shots at different ammunition.

Quote: DIMS

This means that 99 percent of the shells will fly into a circle with a radius of 152 meters. Learn probability theory and say hello to the infantry

They will convey greetings to the enemy infantry with 50 kg of gifts, and their own infantry will be in kilometers like 25-30 and, by any theory of probability, they will not be confronted with them.

Quote: DIMS

http://commi.narod.ru/txt/1986/0203.htm

Jokers you however ---- I will quote in full

Battery 105 mm towed howitzers M102 the 105 mm howitzers * infantry division’s division is designed to directly support first-tier units and performs tasks independently or as part of a division.

In the offensive, firing positions are equipped in the range of the supported unit at a distance of 2 - 4 km from the front edge. Battery builds, as a rule, in one echelon (in line). Construction by a ledge to the left (right) is not excluded, while howitzers are placed at a distance of 50 - 100 m from each other; ha. The firing position size is 400 x 500 m. The change of positions is carried out by the battery in its entirety.

further self-propelled guns M109 A2 barrel length 23 gauge Firing range, km 14,6; 19,3 with an active rocket
M110 Barrel length, calibres 25,3 Firing range, 16,8 km
For what year is the tablet? For 1975?

[Kars]

Equip positions it’s not about the times of artillery reconnaissance radars. We have passed such as in Vietnam it will no longer ride.

[DIMS]

Now do not equip the positions ??? Wow news.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Now do not equip the positions ??? Wow news

Maybe somewhere in Chichen or Afghanistan.
But modern self-propelled guns arrived, gave a series and left, nothing needs to be equipped.

[DIMS]

Well, you have to admit that you lied, and tried to falsify the facts by comparing 2140 and 850 m of direct shots at different ammunition.

I was wrong. Knowing that a 122 mm projectile was available, and I saw it (by the way, the shot index of this 122 mm projectile 3BM11 rotating projectile), I decided that it was used on the D-30. By the time of my training BP1 was withdrawn from service, the cumulative were BK6 and BK13.

They will convey greetings to the enemy infantry with 50 kg of gifts, and their own infantry will be in kilometers like 25-30 and, by any theory of probability, they will not be confronted with them.

You are zero not only in ballistics, but also in tactics. Dear, artillery supports the infantry. This means that running into resistance, or repelling an attack, the infantry causes artillery fire. Do you need to tell that in this case the infantry is clearly not 25-30 km?

Jokers you however ---- I will quote in full

And what is incomprehensible to you in it?

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

I was wrong. Knowing that a 122 mm projectile exists

For a tank rifled gun.

Quote: Kars

even though there was 3BM11

Quote: DIMS

By the time of my training BP1

And then what were you wrong in comparing the direct range of a tank BPS and howitzer caliber cumulative admit?

Quote: DIMS

Dear, artillery supports infantry

Necessarily long-range self-propelled guns? Or does the infantry have another artillery?

Quote: DIMS

And what is incomprehensible to you in it?

Everything is clear, I also explained to you that the systems we are discussing are not mentioned there.

Quote: DIMS

You did not know anything about her at that time

So how could I lie then? It didn’t even occur to me personally that anyone would ram the gunpowder.

Quote: DIMS

Christmas trees sticks for sure !!! And it's not about the initial speed and the throwing angle

Fir-tree sticks the trajectory exists by itself and does not depend on anything?)))))))

Quote: DIMS

Well, they have not only long-range shells

Quote: Kars

OFS firing range increased to 33 km

That is enough.

Okay, I'm tired of teaching you on abstract topics. Let's go back to the basics.

Modern artillery long-range systems with a barrel length of 48 gauges are called howitzers only because of the ability to fire on the blog’s hinged paths with large elevation angles and a variable charge, and basically do not differ from the gun (being cannons that were betrayed to fire at large elevation angles )

[DIMS]

Me? You rave along the way

Favorite answer to an uncomfortable question

Where did I mention the fill density?

You did not know anything about her at that time

Is it that they have such different trajectories when shooting at the maximum distance?

Christmas trees sticks for sure !!! And it's not about the initial speed and the throwing angle

Mostly, why do you need this? They shoot at targets at any range within range --- and there is no mention of ... sharpening .. for short distances.
A link - you have to repeat yourself

Well, they have not only long-range shells and not always firing at maximum charge. So go ahead, a link, and not to yourself.

[DIMS]

do they really have different gravitations. air resistance?
Gravity is one. It acts differently, but air resistance, of course, is different. This is elementary, the higher the less.

Give your version of the CVO and with the link. The escalibur in theory should provide a direct hit.

I have already given data on "Excalibur", that's enough.

Give a QUOTE or LINK to such a thing, and that’s all, nothing more is required of you.

Give a quote or link to the fact that howitzers mainly shoot at long ranges.

As I see, you didn’t understand, because you didn’t give a quote, which means it’s something from the BPS category for a howitzer.

Is it already becoming a dumb tradition?

For example, in South African G3, dispersion at a distance of 39 is 900 meters.

This means that 99 percent of the shells will fly into a circle with a radius of 152 meters. Learn probability theory and say hello to the infantry.

What not? And give a link to a typical placement of self-propelled guns of class M-109 AC-90

I will give better
http://commi.narod.ru/txt/1986/0203.htm

In the offensive, firing positions are equipped in the range of the supported unit at a distance of 2 - 4 km from the front edge.

In defense, firing positions are located in the depths of the battle formation of the supported unit at a distance of up to 5 km from the front edge

Yet NATO isn’t it?

[Bad_gr]

Our arms exhibition. Self-propelled gun (caliber? - on the left) and tank (125mm - on the right)

[Prohor]

Well you guys are out of control!
Argue on the bubble - and that's enough!
I will be the third: I bet a bottle of Samtrest that there will be no tank with a rifled 152 mm gun!

[ward]

Already there ... I wonder how you put it to me ...

[Prohor]

When the "Armata" with a rifled 152-mm cannon was put into service, they came to [email protected] I will send my postal address!
But I'm afraid this will not happen ....

[ward]

you will be in Samara come ...

[Prohor]

I will - I will come, thanks!
And "Samtrest" I meant that, the taste of childhood, I haven't seen this for a long time ...

[Kars]

Quote: Prokhor

that a tank with a rifled 152 mm gun will not

Personally, I am sure --- it would be 152 mm licking and even on the iron-ore base and angles of the vertical traverse up to 90 degrees.

[Prohor]

It would be good!
Is there anything new on the MMW?
Or will it also be an "eternal Jew", like an electromagnetic gun, which has been talked about for 150 years?

Um, a colleague, looked at the flag - and I think: where do you expect such news from Kharkov or from UVZ?

[DIMS]

According to the MMF, total silence. It seems to be developing.

[DIMS]

and corners of the vertical traverse up to 90 degrees.

Is it with a tower like a self-propelled gun? Or without a breech?

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

Is it with a tower like a self-propelled gun? Or without a breech?

Let them think. If the tower is uninhabited then something can do something new.

[DIMS]

Then, not only the tower should be uninhabited, but the turret space is absolutely empty.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

but the turret space is completely empty

[DIMS]

I look at it and keep thinking, "Where is the ammunition for this thing?"

[Kars]

ring the model did not me, and by the way subjected her kriteke more than once.
But the fact of the armored capsule and the presence of the crew in the armored capsule in the bow of the hull is available. Along the way, repeat the old carousel ammunition.

[Bad_gr]

Judging by the long neck of the tower, it is possible that the shot will be unitary.
The ammunition is probably located in the hull, since the UVZ is a supporter of just such an approach (it is believed that it is more protected there), but I wouldn’t be sure that there is a carousel: the absence of people in the tower allows another ammunition location (for example, both sides of the gun).

[DIMS]

This feed niche is painfully tiny. In the building, then there will be no room for the breech.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: DIMS

This feed niche is painfully tiny. In the building, then there will be no room for the breech.

So after all the breech never entered a niche of a tower. He is in the tank body. A narrow niche in the rear of the tower is probably needed for an automatic loader: a shot is pulled from the combat station into this niche, and then sent to the cannon.

[DIMS]

I mean that the place under the tower will not be free, which means that a gun with large elevation angles cannot be installed.

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

I mean that the place under the tower will not be free

Again do not read.
A carousel, for example, means free space in the middle.
option

Quote: Bad_gr

(for example, on both sides of the gun).

Also assumes free space along the axis of the gun.
There is also such a thing as a constant charging angle.

[DIMS]

Again do not read.
A carousel, for example, means free space in the middle.

The farther the funnier

Also assumes free space along the axis of the gun.
There is also such a thing as a constant charging angle.

Correctly. And all unnecessary things like sights, vertical aiming mechanisms, stabilizers and so on. kick the fuck.
By the way, the self-propelled guns do not use a constant loading angle, this negatively affects the accuracy

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

The farther the funnier

C'mon, just look at the same T-72
By the way, here's an article that beats all your stories about the rigidity of classifications.
http://topwar.ru/17653-152-millimetrovaya-pushka-gaubica-d-20-52-p-546.html

Maximum range of fire 17410 m;
The maximum range of fire ARS - 24 thousand m;
The initial velocity of the projectile - 655 m / s;
The weight of the OFS shell is 43,51 kg;
Maximum elevation / declination angle + 63 / -5 degrees;
The angle of horizontal guidance - 58 degrees.

Performance characteristics of the X-NUMX mm D-152 howitzer gun:
Ballistic data:
Initial velocity of high-explosive fragmentation projectile:
- full charge - 655 m / s;
- reduced charge - 511 m / s;
The initial speed of the armor-piercing tracer shell - 600 m / s;
The initial speed of the cumulative projectile - 680 m / s;

GUN-howitzer,

Quote: DIMS

, the self-propelled guns do not use a constant loading angle, this negatively affects the accuracy

And they are used on tanks, and in long-range naval artillery.

Quote: DIMS

, vertical aiming mechanisms, stabilizers, etc. kick the fuck

Is it all in the breech’s wound? Would you look at any drawing of the tank ---- in the classic tank on either side of the gun there are crew members (that is, whole people, not what you thought) and nothing to throw out .

[DIMS]

Didn't find anything older? There the "attachment" takes up even less space.

[Kars]

Leopardik 2 will go?

[Prohor]

Are you all bickering? Oh well....

[Kars]

Quote: Prokhor

Oh well....

You can still look here. It seems to have worked out quite well.
http://topwar.ru/17190-vsya-lozh-tankovyh-reytingov-chast-ii.html#comment-id-513
129

[DIMS]

And what am I watching there? right, nicherta. Place of power under a dozen 152-mm shells with charges

[Kars]

Quote: DIMS

And what am I watching there? right nicerta

From the category - I look in the book, I see a fig.

someone was going to put 152 mm in the Leopard 2A4? They showed you that you don’t need to throw anything away

Quote: DIMS

And all unnecessary things like sights, vertical aiming mechanisms, stabilizers and so on. kick the fuck

In an uninhabited tower of a promising tank. Well, you once again showed that the military is very limited people. (Although it may be you are so special)

[Kars]

not such a layout does not like, but for clarity you will.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Kars

Also assumes free space along the axis of the gun.

What for ? if the commander with the gunner with their equipment was removed from the tower, then why not use the vacant space for the combat deployment? Integrate the ammunition shell into the tower structure to the left and right of the gun. Of course, the entire ammunition will rotate together with the tower, but for Abrams it’s not a problem to turn a tower with an ammunition depot - that means there shouldn’t be any problems about this.

Quote: Kars

There is also such a thing as a constant charging angle.

The same is not a fact that will be needed. It depends on the design of the automatic loader, and judging by the tower, the design of the AZ is completely different (not like in teshes).

[Kars]

Quote: Bad_gr

Why

in general, it was a place for swinging the gun in order to increase the angle of vertical guidance

Quote: Bad_gr

The same is not a fact that will be needed

but the fact that he is

Quote: Bad_gr

judging by the tower design AZ

if this is about a model --- then I bet that it is a fake for Chinese comrades

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Kars

in general, it was a place for swinging the gun in order to increase the angle of vertical guidance

Actually, I answered this phrase:

Quote: Kars

But the fact of the armored capsule and the presence of the crew in the armored capsule in the bow of the hull is available. Along the way, repeat the old carousel ammunition.

To which I replied:

Quote: Bad_gr

The ammunition is probably located in the hull, since the UVZ is a supporter of just such an approach (it is believed that it is more protected there), but I wouldn’t be sure that there is a carousel: the absence of people in the tower allows another ammunition location (for example, both sides of the gun).

Etc....

Incidentally, the absence of an ammunition shell under the cannon (carousel teshek), at the same height of the gun’s location, will make it possible to lower the breech lower. In other words, increase the angle of elevation of the trunk (perhaps as much as possible like that of the presented model)

[Kars]

Quote: Bad_gr

Actually, I answered this phrase

But they cited a completely different comment. Not directly related to what is given now.

Quote: Bad_gr

Etc....

Quote: Bad_gr

the absence of people in the tower allows for another arrangement of ammunition (

UVZ = Carousel ---- honestly until they (UVZ) did not impress me with their originality.
But there is nothing much to discuss here so far.

Quote: Bad_gr

lack of ammunition under the gun (carousel teshek),

Well, it doesn’t really bother, it’s just not possible to move the trunnion closer to the stern. But again, this is all pointless conversation. As long as there is a model and a drawing that I brought (I don’t presume to say that it relates to armature)
According to the model, I wrote in specialized topics.

[Kars]

By the way, I remembered here in the light of the mention of the IS-7 in another topic
about rifled tank guns

The tank’s armament consisted of a 130-mm M-65 rifled gun with an initial armor-piercing projectile speed of 1000 m / s, coaxial with a 14,5 mm KPVT heavy machine gun. The tank was equipped with a two-plane stabilizer “Thunderstorm”, an automated fire control system, a TPD-2C stereoscopic rangefinder sight, a semi-automatic cassette loading mechanism, night shooting and surveillance devices. When shooting at night, the TPN-1 night sight was used. Ammunition consisted of 35 rounds and 800 rounds. The gun had a system for purging the bore with compressed air. The mechanized laying of the cartridge-type electric drive was designed for 15 shells and 15 shells. To facilitate loading the gun, an electromechanical rammer was used. The direct firing range of an armor-piercing projectile at a target 2 m high was 1230 m. An armor-piercing projectile with an initial velocity of 1030 m / s. at a distance of 1000 m. pierced a vertically located armor plate with a thickness of 280 mm. Armor-piercing-piercing projectile, having a mass of 8,7 kg and an initial speed of 1800 m / s, from the same distance pierced armor 350 mm thick.