Military Review

A new generation gun ASCALON or how the Europeans want to bypass the "Armata"

96

Non-white flag



The French are more decisive than ever in terms of new military developments. In December, it became known about the start of the practical implementation of the program for the development of a new aircraft carrier Porte avion nouvelle generation or PANG. And even earlier, the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) program was launched, or in the French version of the Système de combat aérien du future (SCAF), which involves the creation of a sixth generation fighter. France, Germany and Spain are involved in the project: the experienced French Dassault Aviation has been declared the "first violin". France is also an active participant in the new program for the creation of a European tank "New generation" (the division of tanks into generation conditionally) Main Ground Combat System or MGCS, which, however, like the above samples, will appear very soon.

The aircraft carrier can be called quite a logical replacement for the Charles de Gaulle ship, although if you look at it, PANG looks too expensive and "bulky". The rest of the programs can be viewed as a response from Russia. Fighter - as a reaction to the strengthening of the Aerospace Forces and the construction of the first serial fifth-generation Su-57. The tank, as you might guess, was the answer to the new Russian T-14 based on the Armata heavy tracked platform.

The French (and Europeans in general) approached the matter more than responsibly. We can say that the birth of a new combat vehicle began with the creation of a weapon for it, which would be fundamentally different from everything that NATO tanks now use.


Recently, an important and significant event for the program took place: the French company Nexter showed the concept of ASCALON (Autoloaded and SCALable Outperforming guN) tank armament, which can be obtained by a new generation combat vehicle. This, in particular, drew attention to the well-known in narrow circles blog bmpd, published under the auspices of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.

The main "disappointment" was that the French decided to keep the caliber of the gun a secret, however, if you recall the developments of the Nexter, there is almost no doubt that we are talking about a 140-mm gun. As a reminder, in 2019 it became known that Nexter had armed the Leclerc main battle tank (MBT) with a massive 140-mm cannon and had already conducted a series of tests by that time. The upgraded vehicle fired over 200 successful shots. At the same time, the company itself said that the new weapon is "70 percent more effective" than the existing 120-mm tank guns of the North Atlantic bloc. At the same time it became known that the gun was not intended for Leclerc, but for the new Main Ground Combat System.


What are the French saying now? A recent statement from Nexter cites the following:

“Based on technical solutions that will reach full maturity by 2025, ASCALON proposes an open architecture designed to serve as the basis for joint development within the Franco-German MGCS program, thereby laying the foundations for promising European tank gun and ammunition, similar to work previously carried out over the 140-mm FTMA cannon in cooperation between the allied countries. "

The goal is very ambitious: to ensure tactical superiority not only tomorrow (in the understanding of the French, this is the 30th), but also in the following decades. The gun will receive an automatic loader, created on the basis of the experience of developing the automatic loader of the Leclerc tank, as well as a number of other significant innovations.

Together with the above technical solutions, they look like this:

- New caliber (probably 140 mm);
- Automatic loader;
- Possibility of using compact telescopic ammunition (with an armor-piercing sub-caliber core), as well as guided ammunition;
- Muzzle brake of a fundamentally new design;
- Controlled system of damping the impulse of the shot and recoil.

In any case, the use of a new caliber will make MGCS an enemy that neither the USSR nor Russia has ever encountered in battle. Experiments with tank guns of increased power in the West were carried out before, but new technologies allow (at least in theory) to make them sufficiently compact and reliable.


The French have a competitor: the German Rheinmetall. As a reminder, last year it presented a video demonstrating the latest smooth-bore 130mm tank gun.


It is noteworthy that the British Challenger 2 tank was used as a base for it, and not the famous German Leopard 2: I must say, a very original solution, given the low popularity of the British tank in the world.

Leo Clerk vs. T-14


Few people remember now, but during the Eurosatory 2018 exhibition, the KNDS Group - a joint venture between the French Nexter Defense Systems and the German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann - presented the EMBT (European Main Battle Tank) program. De facto, a Leclerc turret was simply installed on the Leopard 2 platform. Few people liked this palliative, however, according to the media, it can become a kind of "prototype" of the Main Ground Combat System (without being its prototype in the usual sense, of course).

A new generation gun ASCALON or how the Europeans want to bypass the "Armata"

So, it is known that MGCS should embody all the proven technologies previously used on Leclerc and Leopard 2, complementing them with new technical solutions, such as the aforementioned ASCALON. It is too early to judge the detailed appearance of the tank: the tactical and technical requirements for it should be formulated by 2024, and the beginning of the arrival of new combat vehicles into service was planned around the mid-30s.

In general, the appearance of a vehicle armed with a new 130-mm or 140-mm cannon among the Europeans (even if in the future) will be a challenge for Russia. The complex of active protection (the T-14 received the KAZ "Afganit") is no longer surprising to anyone, and the 125-mm 2A82 cannon installed on the new Russian tank does not have a fundamental advantage over the NATO cannons.


As TASS wrote last year, citing materials from the 38th Research and Testing Institute for Armored Weapons and Military Equipment, the Russian military is proposing in the future to equip T-14 Armata tanks with a new uninhabited turret with a 152 mm cannon. That is, in fact, to return to where it all began, namely, the conditional "Object 195", which was armed with a 152-millimeter cannon, and which was abandoned in the 2000s, sending funds to the "Armata".

In all fairness, the T-14 is, of course, a more modern machine, generally speaking. However, a completely natural question arises: what prevented from initially equipping it with a new cannon in order to get a truly revolutionary tank? Without any "buts" and vague plans for the future.
Author:
96 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka April 26 2021 04: 48
    +1
    However, a completely natural question arises: what prevented from initially equipping it with a new cannon in order to get a truly revolutionary tank?

    In the color of the article, a very, very topical question? The answer that you wanted to save money here will not get off.
    1. Peak
      Peak April 26 2021 05: 20
      +1
      Europeans want to bypass "Armata"


      French people ? Well, let's see what happens. In the meantime, in Europe and the countries of the alliance and allies, the "trendsetter" are the Germans with their Rheinmetall -120 mm, in various versions, often with significant changes, spread throughout the world.

      And "Armata" what It is also quite possible that a new gun will appear on it, up to and including 152 mm.
      But unlike its closest competitors, it is constructively placed in a separate combat module.
      1. English tarantas
        English tarantas April 27 2021 04: 59
        0
        Interestingly, in Europe rh120 only from the Germans, those who bought the Leo and those who cannot make cannons. And everyone who can have their own, the same French masters. The fact that one cannon fired from them does not say anything, they cannot even squeeze anything out of it, they immediately raised the length, unlike the same Americans and Jews who could.
      2. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk April 27 2021 21: 15
        +1
        Quote: PiK
        French people ? Well, let's see what happens.

        And what are you so about the French? Will come out with them, of course it will come out. It's a question of time. Don't underestimate your competitor. But by that time, a new combat module (tower) may appear on the "Armata". With a new gun, of course. So - everything flows, everything changes.
      3. Vladislav Trofimov
        Vladislav Trofimov 1 May 2021 16: 22
        +1
        The appearance of a new weapon is also quite possible on it.
        first, the armata itself should appear ...
        the tank was practically not created, but they caused an avalanche of developments in NATO countries ...
        they will not joke there, they will create it for sure ...
    2. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 April 26 2021 05: 22
      +7
      What's the point? Well, let's say they made it right now and as planned from this year they would go to the troops. What principally does it give besides troubles? In addition to the weapon, we need a new AZ, new shells. You need to work on this topic and just switch to it at the right time. And now, in principle, it is simply redundant. What really surprises me is the merged photos of 80 BVMs with Burlak. It's not just that they are apparently tinkering with him now ...
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik April 26 2021 09: 24
        +11
        Quote: carstorm 11
        What really surprises me is the merged photos of 80 BVMs with Burlak.

        He and the T-90M are quite relevant machines. Armata has only 1 advantage over them. Increased crew survivability. But this does not affect the performance of tasks. Therefore, there is no interest in this machine from foreign customers and opponents.
        KAZ is badly needed.
      2. Bogatyrev
        Bogatyrev April 27 2021 21: 00
        0
        Yes, this issue was discussed at VO.
        I liked very much the opinion that the 152-mm gun turns the tank into a powerful and well-protected infantry fire support vehicle, which will be able to use a wide range of existing and promising profile ammunition - from guided projectiles to APAM-type projectiles.
        But this will no longer be an MBT, but some other vehicle.
      3. Thrombus
        Thrombus April 28 2021 08: 47
        +1
        Well, what will the coalition share with new shells!
        1. Comrade Kim
          Comrade Kim 4 May 2021 18: 20
          +1
          To bring this race of calibers and classifications to absurdity, let the engineers from Germany and France "register" in psychiatric hospitals.
          We roll out to Red Square, May 9, Armata with a tower from the SV Coalition.
          Let them
    3. bayard
      bayard April 26 2021 09: 11
      +13
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      In the color of the article, a very, very topical question? The answer that you wanted to save money here will not get off.

      No, it was entirely the initiative of the supreme commander-in-chief of that time, D.A. Medvedev. and his entourage. It was he who articulated (voiced) the rejection of the "Object-195" project and the task of designing the "Armata" from 125 mm. cannon. At the same time, this truly "golden" menagerie was ordered - a new armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicle "not relying on previous developments." So, as a result, we got something that we don’t want to take into service, and all the best that was before was flushed down the toilet.
      And most importantly, time is wasted on making and implementing the right decisions.
      Stupidity?
      I don’t think so.
      Like all military (and not only) reforms since that time.
      125 mm. the cannon for the "Armata" was explained by the fact that, they say, its power is enough, and the ammunition for it from the Soviet times, well, simply heaps up. Medvedev articulated. And precisely at the moment of rejection of "195" and the task for "Armata".
      That is why the troops upgraded from the T-72B3 \ B3M and T-80 storage bases go to the troops, for a platoon of such is better than one misunderstanding with the same characteristics.
      And aviation without AWACS aircraft.
      And a Fleet without ships.
      Guided well.
      And they will also guide you.
      1. El Chuvachino
        El Chuvachino April 26 2021 15: 34
        0
        Well, in a nutshell, "everything is bad." Is it possible to panic already or not yet?
        1. bayard
          bayard April 26 2021 16: 42
          +1
          Need to work .
          And think about defenses, and not about "their own fantasies" and pleasing "partners".
          "Armata" is justified in the army only with the new 152 mm. cannon, which will provide a decisive quality advantage and justify the money spent on it.
          Everything else is from the evil one.
          For 125 mm. bunches we already have enough tanks.
          Both for yourself and for allies / partners / buyers.
          Quote: El Chuvachino
          Is it possible to panic or not yet?

          It was an assessment of the work done.
          And in a very mild form.
          The situation around Russia is such that at any moment everything can slide into war. And very quickly. Therefore, the conversation about "mistakes made" and inflicted sabotage is not idle, but the most urgent one.
          1. El Chuvachino
            El Chuvachino April 26 2021 18: 54
            -3
            For me, it’s populism with general phrases like “you have to work”.
            1. bayard
              bayard April 26 2021 22: 29
              0
              Do you propose to go to the barricades, to overthrow the "bloody regime"?
              Or how to get unwilling officials to work, who are already doing well?
              To do something, you need to - DO.
              And ASK for the task entrusted with all the severity and inevitability.
              Is the current government able to work?
              Question.
              1. El Chuvachino
                El Chuvachino April 27 2021 12: 18
                0
                Quote: bayard
                Do you propose to go to the barricades, to overthrow the "bloody regime"?

                What are you fantasizing about?

                On the contrary, I propose to let people do their jobs in peace. I see that you are very clever with words. “We have to work,” and then they switched over to officials so simply. As usual, officials are to blame for everything.

                Quote: bayard
                need to do .

                Do it!
    4. Hagen
      Hagen April 26 2021 10: 51
      +5
      Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
      In the color of the article, a very, very topical question? The answer that you wanted to save money here will not get off.

      Who should I send this question to? Do you really think that someone from the members of the forum is able to give an intelligible answer? Or maybe it's time to get out of the den and talk with specialists from NizhTagil or the RF Ministry of Defense, for example? Is there a reason to talk about a real problem on the basis of bazaar gossip?
      1. Victorio
        Victorio April 26 2021 13: 23
        +2
        Quote: Hagen
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        In the color of the article, a very, very topical question? The answer that you wanted to save money here will not get off.

        Who should I send this question to? Do you really think that someone from the members of the forum is able to give an intelligible answer? Or maybe it's time to get out of the den and talk with specialists from NizhTagil or the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, for example? Is there any reason to talk about a real problem on the basis of bazaar gossip?

        ===
        this site to come out with such a discussion proposal? everyone busy is busy
    5. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 26 2021 17: 38
      +1
      1) the question is simple, why did the leo-clerks suddenly cease to be amazed from 2a82 at effective combat ranges? or have we developed a 152 mm cannon with a high safety margin? 2) There is no longer any sense to chase the caliber ... it is more effective to intensify work on kamikaze drones, 3rd generation ATGMs, ATGMs with optical channels and Hermes ..
      1. English tarantas
        English tarantas April 27 2021 05: 17
        0
        They make their way, but look at the 140mm projectile, how do you give it much further it flies in a straight line, how much more accuracy and how high is the penetration at long distances?
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 27 2021 13: 06
          +3
          What difference does it make if the range of a real battle is now limited to 3,5 km? And in fact, the bulk of the tanks are destroyed at the expense of other means ... if it comes to that, it is more optimal to develop a drone rocket to fight the new European cakes, which, after being launched through the barrel can fly, say 15 km, and hit a target from above like a kamikaze drone ..
          1. English tarantas
            English tarantas April 27 2021 21: 16
            0
            3.5 is the approximate maximum efficiency of what motorized riflemen have and shoots in a straight line, while the new ATGMs fire at much greater distances, and if the tank fires not at 5 km maximum, but at 8-10 km, then this will only get better. In addition, an increase in the power of HE shells is good and nothing else.
            Rocket drone? Where did you get this newfangled but meaningless concept. There is a TOUR, and there is even a seeker, increasing the caliber will make it possible to easily raise the flight range to the 15 km you want.
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 27 2021 21: 58
              0
              if only for external control centers.
    6. cat Rusich
      cat Rusich April 26 2021 23: 38
      0
      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka

      In the color of the article, a very, very topical question? The answer that you wanted to save money here will not get off.
      My opinion.
      Yes, they wanted to save money - 125mm caliber shells (shots) have been accumulated in warehouses since Soviet times (yes, old models) - that's whose "bright mind" came the "idea" to use "old stocks" ... while new shells are riveted.
    7. English tarantas
      English tarantas April 27 2021 04: 55
      0
      Lack of money for a new round of the arms race. It didn't work, I have to, but work on this topic is already gathering dust in the archives.
    8. Vadim Georgievich
      Vadim Georgievich April 27 2021 17: 11
      0
      Caliber indirectly affects the rate of fire, the capacity of the amount of ammunition and the complexity of maintenance. Taking this into account, there is a dependence of tactics and technical indicators:
      - Firepower;
      - Maneuverability;
      - The speed of bringing to combat readiness.
    9. Torins
      Torins 3 May 2021 18: 55
      +1
      For a new gun, it is necessary to organize the production of new projectiles, including guided ones, and this is also scientific and design work. And what to do with the huge amount of accumulated shells for existing guns?
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 3 May 2021 19: 47
        +1
        Quote: Torins
        For a new gun, it is necessary to organize the production of new projectiles, including guided ones, and this is also scientific and design work. And what to do with the huge amount of accumulated shells for existing guns?

        I answer. You are confident in the ability of a real 125mm ammunition to hit modern and future enemy tanks. By the way, the average weight of the latter exceeded 60 tons. I'm not sure.
        Second. The T-72, T-80 and T-90 have not gone anywhere. The mobilization option still remains 72.
  3. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U April 26 2021 04: 55
    +5
    In any case, the use of a new caliber will make MGCS an enemy that neither the USSR nor Russia has ever encountered in battle.
    Well, no one smelled smooth-bore 152 mm in battle. laughing So it's too early to wring your hands.

    However, a completely natural question arises: what prevented from initially equipping it with a new cannon in order to get a truly revolutionary tank?
    Personally, I think that this is a purely market solution, but not just an "effective" economy, but a step towards the psychological support of sales of the T-90 with a 125 mm gun, with approximately the following motivation: "Armata is of course space, but the T-90 has the same (almost) a weapon, feel free to buy! "
    1. URAL72
      URAL72 April 26 2021 06: 22
      +2
      This is not a market solution. Tank and howitzer shells are two different things. That is, we will have to develop new shells from scratch, purchase new equipment for their production. How much will it cost to stockpile a new caliber? Armata is not only a cannon. The main thing in it is the much greater possibilities of detecting and identifying targets, the ability to work in conjunction with other equipment, incl. aviation (network centric), a high degree of protection and automation. That is why, she is a new generation, the gun is not the main thing here, especially since we have been firing missiles through the barrel for a long time.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U April 26 2021 06: 32
        +1
        Quote: URAL72
        That is why, she is a new generation, the gun is not the main thing here, especially since we have been firing missiles through the barrel for a long time.
        The author and the Europeans disagree with you:
        The goal is very ambitious: to ensure tactical superiority not only tomorrow (in the understanding of the French, this is the 30th), but also in the following decades ... ... a real revolutionary tank?


        Quote: URAL72
        That is, you will have to develop new shells from scratch.
        Obviously, you are not in the subject, the shells have already been developed for the 152 mm gun, in general.
        1. carstorm 11
          carstorm 11 April 26 2021 06: 44
          +4
          What kind? 40 years ago?))) Here, not just shells are needed, but new ones. BO will have to be created from scratch in essence. The characteristics have changed. And what is more important is the statistics on tank losses in the last 30 years. There, under 80 percent of the losses are not from tank guns. And there won't be less. The development of ATGM and other systems such as UAVs is of much more importance and capabilities. Tanks with tanks do not fight for a long time already a given.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U April 26 2021 06: 54
            +3
            Quote: carstorm 11
            Here, not just shells are needed, but new ones. BO will have to be created from scratch in essence.
            Even the then crowbars for 152 mm gave a huge advantage over 120-125 mm, 152 HE shells gave almost a two-fold advantage against similar 125s, and to upgrade, we need to screw in new highly fashionable fuses.
            Quote: carstorm 11
            The development of ATGM and other systems such as UAVs is of much more importance and capabilities.
            And here, just 152 mm, again, gives significant advantages to the capabilities of ATGM launched through the barrel.
            1. carstorm 11
              carstorm 11 April 26 2021 08: 15
              +4
              Once again ... the vast majority of tank losses do not come from enemy tanks. Well, will you give him this wonderful crowbar and then what? At what tank-hazardous targets to shoot from it if the tanks almost now do not meet in battle with each other? What will increase to 152? That was? What to spend a lot of money? Look at any conflict, video darkness. Are there many tank battles?
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U April 26 2021 08: 34
                +1
                Quote: carstorm 11
                Once again ... the vast majority of tank losses do not come from enemy tanks. Well, will you give him this wonderful crowbar and then what?
                It's not about the crowbar, it's about the spent ammunition, there was a complaint about this.

                Quote: carstorm 11
                Which will give an increase to 152
                So I am amazed, why then did the "world community" of gygy get puzzled with 135 - 140 mm tank guns ?!
                Quote: carstorm 11
                Look at any conflict, video darkness.
                And which one? Whom with whom? The fact that tanks do not fight with tanks is because one of the sides has practically no such tanks. But the other has air superiority. And what if no one has this superiority, but everybody has tanks?

                Quote: carstorm 11
                What will increase to 152?
                152 mm is even without a crowbar, it was given to you, very strong ammunition, including special. (YAO) plus much more powerful than 125 mm ATGM, including a roof-breaker or some other missile-guided projectile.
                Yes, I am in favor of the widespread use of nuclear tactical weapons by the Russian Armed Forces, there are too many opponents on the horizon, their superiority in conventional weapons and manpower is too great. Well, the psychological moment should not be missed.
                1. carstorm 11
                  carstorm 11 April 26 2021 08: 48
                  0
                  I don't understand them either. In my opinion, it's just the development of funds. Or pulling them out. Some light tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are sculpted by the cost and weight of the MBT. Others generally argue that the time of the Tana is over. I don't understand both sides. Tanks with tanks do not fight for completely different reasons. As for special ammunition, then shooting for a couple - it is fraught with three ammunition) let's also air defense and USK with a caliber and the tank will be primed)
                2. Dima Nikolaev
                  Dima Nikolaev April 26 2021 09: 52
                  +1
                  I am with you, DEAR, completely agree. Especially on the part of 152mm. Ya. I am also a supporter of the development, IMPROVEMENT of tactical nuclear weapons ... The idea of ​​this on tanks I really like!
                  1. NIKN
                    NIKN April 26 2021 12: 25
                    0
                    Quote: Dima Nikolaev
                    I completely agree with you, dear, especially on the part of 152mm. Yao. I am also a supporter

                    Supporter, that's good. We are all supporters of this or that, and it makes no sense to prohibit or criticize at all, well, if there are all supporters of the same thing, then something will not be harsh. I remembered the dialogue between Woland and Matthew from Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita", "... do you want the shadows to disappear? And people and trees cast shadows too ..."
                    But on the subject of nuclear weapons, albeit tactical in tank ammunition ... what rank should a tank commander, gunner, loader have, so that he would be entrusted with the use of nuclear weapons? Obviously not a sergeant ... Well, all the other nuances would not be bad to take into account. For example, the commander of a nuclear submarine missile carrier is equated in my opinion to .... I don't remember exactly, I won't lie, but the rank of general (on land) is like that to him.
                    1. Dima Nikolaev
                      Dima Nikolaev April 29 2021 08: 42
                      0
                      Everything will be fine. It is possible to make not all tanks, of course, but breakthrough, shock "elite" regiments, where all the commanders of the vehicles are officers (it is clear that they are NOT sergeants). Submarine-there, of course, the requirements are even higher, because. YAO is much more powerful than it WILL be in an "atomic" tank ...
                    2. Dima Nikolaev
                      Dima Nikolaev April 29 2021 09: 04
                      -1
                      In a "real battle" I did not shoot nuclear weapons from a tank. I will not lie. But I played a lot and successfully in my favorite strategic war games (I started with chess, the end of the 80s.). There was a strategy "Generals" in the beginning of 2001. there were tanks even with a nuclear engine, shells ... So: as soon as I had time, quickly make "nuclear" tactical upgrades, I very quickly "took out" all the enemies. As from people, and up to 7! simulated, the most difficult, on one (field) map. In the first few minutes, DESTROYED with a tactical nuclear onslaught the entire defense of the closest "enemies", SACRIDING the resources of his own defense ...
      2. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev April 26 2021 08: 30
        -7
        Can you imagine how much they can steal on all of the above? This is the goal of the military-industrial complex of any Western country.
      3. loki565
        loki565 April 26 2021 11: 51
        -1
        This is not a market solution. Tank and howitzer shells are two different things. That is, we will have to develop new shells from scratch, purchase new equipment for their production. How much will it cost to stockpile a new caliber? Armata is not only a cannon. The main thing in it is the much greater possibilities of detecting and identifying targets, the ability to work in conjunction with other equipment, incl. aviation (network centric), a high degree of protection and automation. That is why, she is a new generation, the gun is not the main thing here, especially since we have been firing missiles through the barrel for a long time.

        Sooner or later, you will have to switch to a larger caliber, it's like with 100mm, which has exhausted its capabilities and switched to 125mm. A larger caliber means a greater high-explosive and fragmentation effect on fortifications and infantry. Well, about missiles through the barrel, they also rested on the dimensions of the caliber and cannot be guaranteed to penetrate the frontal armor of modern tanks. But with 152mm it is already the caliber of a modern ATGM like the Kornet, perhaps it will be modernized for use in tanks, then the range of destruction will increase to 10 km.
        1. URAL72
          URAL72 April 26 2021 13: 23
          -1
          Our tank ATGMs, as well as the shells, rested not on the caliber, but on the automatic loader. It does not allow you to increase the length of the ammunition. On Armata, the machine gun is different, there and the projectile is longer. Or the old one can be shorter. For an ATGM, speed is also important now, and an increase in diameter does not contribute to this.
          1. Genry
            Genry April 26 2021 13: 45
            +6
            Quote: URAL72
            For an ATGM, speed is also important now, and an increase in diameter does not contribute to this.

            For ATGM, it is the diameter that is important - the diameter of the focusing cumulative funnel determines the thickness of the penetrated armor.
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I April 27 2021 01: 40
              0
              Quote: Genry
              For ATGM, it is the diameter that is important - the diameter of the focusing cumulative funnel determines the thickness of the penetrated armor.

              Far "not only"! In WW2, the "diameter" of the German faust cartridges reached 150 mm and prototypes of 160 mm and higher appeared! But by the end of the war, the "diameter" had dropped to 100 mm ... the Soviet and Yugoslav "Panzerfaust" that appeared after the war had 80-mm and 90-mm ammunition! Back in the 50s of the last century, the French decided to set a "world record" and made a 105-mm cumulative tank shell that penetrates the tank "through and through" ... and this is due to the shape (!) Of the cumulative funnel ... basically! , the diameter of the punched hole bvl is equal to the thickness of the pencil! With the "largest", caliber, ammunition, the inlet is "larger" ... it can be assumed that the armor action of the "cumulative" is greater! On the armor penetration "cumulative" is influenced by: 1. the shape of the funnel; 2. "material" of facing; 3. type of explosive; 4. method of stabilizing the projectile; 5.distance of "triggering" of "cumulative" to the armor; 6. "multipoint" (controlled) operation of the "cumulative" ...
              1. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I April 27 2021 03: 01
                0
                PS The diameter of the "cumulative" also affects the armor penetration; but in "reasoning from above" I wanted to say that the "diameter" of the cumulative ammunition is not a "fundamental" factor in increasing the armor penetration of the cumulative ammunition ...
              2. Genry
                Genry April 27 2021 03: 48
                +1
                Quote: Nikolaevich I
                The armor penetration of the "cumulative" is influenced by: 1. the shape of the funnel; 2. "material" of facing; 3. type of explosive; 4. method of stabilizing the projectile; 5.distance of "triggering" of "cumulative" to the armor; 6. "multipoint" (controlled) operation of the "cumulative" ...

                All this has already been licked and rested against the caliber 125mm with armor penetration 800mm.
                ATGM Kornet has a rocket caliber 152mm and armor penetration 1300mm for DZ.

                Therefore, they think about a larger caliber of a tank gun. But such a tank will only be useful as a tank destroyer and for the destruction of powerful long-term fortifications.
                1. riwas
                  riwas April 27 2021 05: 21
                  +1
                  But such a tank will only be useful as a tank destroyer and for the destruction of powerful long-term fortifications.

                  Both tanks are needed: 125mm - main; 152-mm - a tank of amplification, where a long range and projectile power are needed.
          2. loki565
            loki565 April 26 2021 13: 50
            +1
            Our tank ATGMs, as well as the shells, rested not on the caliber, but on the automatic loader. It does not allow you to increase the length of ammunition
            .
            The automatic loader can be made "suspended", this will increase the reloading speed, allow the use of longer crowbars, and most importantly it is safer, knockout panels and all that.

            For an ATGM, speed is also important now, and an increase in diameter does not contribute to this.

            Rather not, almost all modern ATGMs are subsonic, it is important in what projection of the tank it will fly "the ability to make a slide and hit the roof" ATGM weapons are the power of the commutative jet, and it is directly proportional to the diameter. Therefore, the Supersonic Attack penetrates less than the Subsonic Cornet.
            1. Intruder
              Intruder April 26 2021 16: 58
              -1
              here it is important in what projection of the tank it will fly "the ability to make a slide and hit the roof" The ATGM weapon is the power of the commutative jet, and it is directly proportional to the diameter.
              Plus, the cladding material, its properties affect the parameters of the jet and its interaction with the material of the protective structure, and the subsonic is quite convenient when the optical fiber can be controlled on the marching section of the trajectory, alas, it will not work with supersonic, and the onboard avionics of the ATGM is cheaper. final cost ...
    2. Intruder
      Intruder April 26 2021 16: 54
      -1
      that this is a purely market solution, but not just an "effective" economy, but a step towards the psychological support of sales of the T-90 with a 125 mm gun
      Purely Russian business laughing , a little "off-standard", but still with possible "mischievous" efficiency in promoting the product on the market !?
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U April 26 2021 17: 26
        0
        Quote: Intruder
        Purely Russian business

        No, but what? Armata, when it will still go en masse, and the T-90 and very good models are already here, they are already available on the conveyor, and then 152 mm and that's all, the T-90 is already completely unpromising for sales.
        1. Intruder
          Intruder April 26 2021 17: 44
          0
          No, but what? Armata when it will still go en masse, and the T-90 and very good models are already here, in stock and on the conveyor, and then 152 mm and that's it

          Vladimir, I just wrote about the national aspect in business and only ... Hmm, 152 mm., I personally do not see the point in the "manic" growth of the caliber, without taking into account other parameters in the receiver system, can still pay attention to facts in the history of the military , it is instructive already in our reality, just for posterity, especially those sitting in all sorts of offices: KB and Research Institute !?
  4. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 26 2021 05: 31
    +2
    However, a completely natural question arises: what prevented from initially equipping it with a new cannon in order to get a truly revolutionary tank? Without any "buts" and vague plans for the future. And the answers to this "single" question "a cart and a small cart" ... well, in any case, several! However, these "answers" have already been considered on the Internet ... Alas, someone, but not me, will be able to find them and present them on page VO! And I have to urgently leave the place at the computer ... business-sss! hi
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins April 26 2021 06: 13
      0
      I agree. Variations in articles on new generations of weapons in Europe against the "armata" (never put into service) appear with enviable frequency.
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I April 26 2021 11: 50
      +5
      PSwhat prevented from initially equipping it with a new cannon in order to get a truly revolutionary tank?
      Arming with a new cannon? What for ? How will the "new" gun suit the "revolution" in "Armata"? belay One of the arguments ("pluses") in favor of the 152-mm tank gun is the reference to the "agromadic" (hypersonic) muzzle velocity and projectile power ... What is the projectile's hypersonic velocity for? To sew "abrams", like a boot needle a sheet of writing paper! But is MBT currently the main and best anti-tank weapon? Even if we consider the major military conflicts of "modernity", in which a "decent" number of tanks by today's standards took part, then the number of tank losses from enemy tanks is no more than 14 -23% of the total number of losses! The kinetic energy of the projectile largely depends on the initial velocity and to a lesser extent on the mass of the projectile! In addition, in "powder" guns, the dependence of the increase in the initial velocity of the projectile on the increase in the mass of the charge due to the use of a larger caliber is noticeable, mainly, at speeds only up to 2200-2400 m / s ...! Hence the conclusion: To increase the initial speed of a tank BOPS, an increase in the caliber of a tank gun is not "necessary"! You can achieve a high initial velocity of the projectile using a smaller caliber gun, but created on new principles! The 125-mm 2A82 cannon for the T-90 outperforms the 2A46M cannon and one of the best NATO cannons ... the 120-mm L55 cannon is 1,17 times higher ... On the horizon, guns based on new "physical" principles are visible: ETH cannons ... "light-gas" cannons ... But it is proposed to return to the previously tested 152-mm tank cannons! They "experimented" with these weapons on the T-80, T-95, Object 447 tanks ... Well, where are these tanks? Among the reasons that did not allow these tanks to be accepted into service, the reason is the 152-mm cannon! I will also agree that this reason was not the primary reason ... there were enough other primary reasons ... but still it was the reason! What problems does a 152-mm cannon create for adopting a combat vehicle into service? This is a complication of the design of the automatic loader and an increase in its dimensions! This raises the question of increasing the armor space for placing the guns, increasing the mass of MBT ... Then one thing clings to the other! Or it is necessary to throw away "extra" equipment, additional weapons, "internal" equipment for KAZs, OEPs, reduce the ammunition load ... or increase the armor space; which means, increase the size of the vehicle, the mass of MBT! The rate of fire of a 152-mm cannon, even with AZ, will be lower than the rate of fire of a 125-mm gun with AZ ... The barrel of a 152-mm cannon is more expensive than a 125-mm barrel, and its resource is more limited! Greater wear of the recoil devices, which means more frequent and expensive repairs of the tool! By the way, there was also such an argument against the 152-mm cannon: they say, 125-mm cannons are still enough to fight the NATO MBT; and therefore it is not necessary to provoke NATO!
      Total: Yes ... the firepower of the MBT will increase! But isn't it too "expensive"? Will it be worth it?

      PS In this part of the commentary, I "listed" the "cons", "popular" on the Internet ... But there are also "pluses" ... they should also be "listed" in this case ... But maybe in another once?
      1. psiho117
        psiho117 April 26 2021 13: 10
        0
        Pros, cons ... In fact - a new weapon with new shells, for a new tank produced by the piece - this is heresy, nonsense, and drank.
        On the combat effectiveness of armored forces - this will affect a little less than nothing. There are dozens of significantly more effective ways to raise the combat readiness of our armored vehicles.
        We have thousands of tanks in the army, in terms of sights and electronics, are stuck at the technological level of the 80s.

        It is much more effective to finally put on all the vehicles are normal sights with thermal imagers, equip them with new communication systems and CIUS, and finally start introducing KAZ on serial tanks, and not exhibition specimens.
        To finally develop a new TUS, instead of Invar, I would very much like a roof-eater, but simply replacing a 20-year-old rocket is also not bad.
        I'm not talking about all this network centrics and drones, which are also needed.
        But the gun at the moment - nafig did not give up.
      2. Intruder
        Intruder April 26 2021 17: 09
        0
        Hence the conclusion: To increase the initial speed of a tank BOPS, an increase in the caliber of a tank gun is not "necessary"
        Well, you can also use active methods: put in the bottom of the solid propellant rocket, an old method, after all, plus a bottom gas generator to increase a number of parameters in flight ...!?
        What problems does a 152-mm cannon create for adopting a combat vehicle into service? This is a complication of the design of the automatic loader and an increase in its dimensions! This raises the question of increasing the armor space for placing the gun, increasing the mass of the MBT ...


        Shooting kinetics (moment of force), it is so ... yes , and now let's imagine, too, for a tank gun, plus you can exclude movement and confident stabilization of the barrel, that is, the tank turns, surprisingly into ..., the beat of drums - into an ACS, then why fence all this, even in Armata !?
        1. Genry
          Genry April 27 2021 12: 42
          +1
          Quote: Intruder
          the tank turns, surprisingly into ..., the beat of the drums - into an ACS, then why fence all this, even in the Armata !?

          And what, ACS Msta or the Coalition can go in the first line of attack and fight enemy tanks? Well, you hit the drums!

          In ACS:
          APCR projectile speed и accordingly, its energy is below 2 и 4 times.
          A shaped-charge projectile does not like the rapid rotation that occurs in a rifled barrel.
  5. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. April 26 2021 06: 23
    +2
    What is the weight of a French tank with a new cannon?
    Will it fit into the dimensions of our transport routes, bridges, roads and other features of operation in our conditions?
    When all this is known then it will be possible to understand where the French are going to use the new tank.
    1. mojohed2012
      mojohed2012 April 26 2021 13: 12
      +2
      Our dimensions and the existing Leopards, Leclercs and other Abrams / Challengers do not include either by weight or by size. And from 152 mm. cannon - for sure. It will be akin to Hitler's MAUS.
      As he travels across our field, so there he will drown in the tower!
      In Russia, in general, wherever you spit - anti-tank terrain and heavyweights from NATO will go here hard, slowly and with anguish. And this is the wear of the automatic transmission, transmission and other mechanics, overheating of everything.
      And just as in 1941 you cannot pull them out with a group of fighters or a team of horses, but another tractor-tractor will overstrain. From 152 mm. - that.
      1. English tarantas
        English tarantas April 27 2021 06: 06
        +2
        Considering that the leclerc was originally conceived with the possibility of installing something heavy, everything is fine with the chassis. But by weight, yes, they are heavy. On the other hand, the ratio of engine power per ton of weight for NATO tanks is greater than that of most domestic ones, only 80 and b3 are nearby. Besides, tell me, will a ~ 45 ton domestic tank fly everywhere on our roads and bridges? Also no. In my city that year, on the bypass span of an air inflow collapsed, and a maximum of road trains pass through it, and now think how many bridges we have in this state, I'm sure if 45 tons pass on others, they will also collapse.
        And the rough terrain in Europe is the same everywhere, in the same Germany in the spring everything floats, but the tanks are designed for this. So we don't have a special anti-tank terrain, it's bad everywhere.
  6. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx April 26 2021 06: 24
    +8
    However, a completely natural question arises: what prevented from initially equipping it with a new cannon in order to get a truly revolutionary tank? Without any "buts" and vague plans for the future.

    A counter question arises:
    - What for?
    Why, right now, when in fact the T-14 is not being assembled in a large batch (and is not going to collect it yet), bother with a line of new ammunition? It seems to me quite logical that, having now the usual caliber on the T-14, which can work with the entire line of existing ammunition, release these tanks in a limited series and slowly run them in the troops (which is happening), in parallel developing a new cannon and partly a turret for her (possibly under a wider shoulder strap). I think that the army team so far has more questions about the armature than the answers and clear wishes. Surely, first, decide to test another platoon or a T-14 company for a month in the same SAR, in real combat conditions, before understanding and specific instructions for further refinement, etc. Those. I am far from the idea that the T-14 is a fully thought out / proven machine that can be launched in a large series. And it's not a fact that it is generally needed in a large series.
    And to put a new weapon on an already worked-out design, a question about the question ...
    ...
    By the time the Gay Europeans give birth to a new tank, all this will have already been done and tested.
    1. vargo
      vargo April 26 2021 11: 15
      +1
      Another big question is whether it is necessary to put such a gun on a tank when the rivals' armor has not grown. Cannons yes (in perspective), but not armor. It turns out that on the T-14 it is necessary to improve the armor. So already there are developments, perhaps already for the next version.
      1. Al_lexx
        Al_lexx April 26 2021 13: 10
        +2
        It is truth too. On the other hand, we don't know what kind of armor the T-14 has.
        And in general, it seems to me that 120-130mm is a kind of optimum / maximum for a tank gun, in terms of caliber. Further, there is already a disproportionate increase in the size of the tower and the weight of the entire structure, or a proportional decrease in ammunition. Chessgovory, even the T-14 turned out to be a rather large machine (48 tons), if we start from the well-established school of domestic tank building. Abramsamoids and other monstrous mobile pillboxes, we definitely do not need (pmsm). They also have a lot of problems with bridges and railway transportation in Europe. And ours will slip into any gap.
        1. Intruder
          Intruder April 26 2021 17: 32
          -1
          Chessgovory, even the T-14 turned out to be a rather large machine (48 tons)
          Well, just a "swallow", provided that it will be thrown by a rollback - 152 mm. guns!
          1. Al_lexx
            Al_lexx April 26 2021 23: 26
            +1
            Well, just a "swallow", provided that it will be thrown by a rollback - 152 mm. guns!

            In what sense?
            No, I really don't understand what you wanted to say.
            1. Intruder
              Intruder April 27 2021 10: 44
              -1
              In what sense?
              No, I really don't understand what you wanted to say
              You yourself wrote above, about:
              And in general, it seems to me that 120-130mm is a kind of optimum / maximum for a tank gun, in terms of caliber. Then there is a disproportionate increase in the size of the tower and the weight of the entire structure, or a proportional decrease in ammunition.
              mass and impulse of force, in this regard, if we switch to a large caliber of 152 mm., although I myself think that the optimal "for a hole punch" with all sorts of different BOPSs and other promising ammunition striking elements, just: from 57 mm to 100 mm , in this range, a lot can be done and implemented in technical terms and in a complex way: ammunition-weapons and, by the way, practical developments have long been tested in real (combat) conditions, both in the Union and in the West! And the growth of the caliber, right up to 152 mm., Is fraught with more serious problems for the design of the platform chassis than a gain in combat effectiveness, there are no disposable tanks, right !? wink
              1. Al_lexx
                Al_lexx April 27 2021 10: 56
                +1
                Quote: Intruder
                And the growth of the caliber, right up to 152 mm., Is fraught with more serious problems for the design of the platform chassis than a gain in combat effectiveness, there are no disposable tanks, right !?

                Ah ... now I caught up with what you mean.
                Well .. in a sense, and I was trying to convey the same.
      2. English tarantas
        English tarantas April 27 2021 06: 10
        0
        The armor has not grown, but the accuracy and range have increased. With an increase in caliber, they will grow noticeably. The vaunted 3 km tours fall through time, we saw it at the biathlon, and shooting with houses at 3 km is not new for a long time, faster and more convenient.
    2. Genry
      Genry April 26 2021 13: 53
      0
      Quote: Al_lexx
      bother with the new ammo lineup?

      There are no problems for the production of new ammunition - materials and technologies do not change.
      This only increases the inventory in logistics - but now in the age of computers ....
  7. Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev April 26 2021 08: 29
    -6
    They will receive a tank that will cost as much as five Armata, weigh as much as two, have a couple of dozen shells, make about a hundred for the entire EU, the grandmother will cut it and understand that no one needs it, although Saudi Arabia may buy it if it does not go broke by that time , they love to buy scrap metal, the main thing is that it is new and super super. The caliber of 125 mm is the limit for a normal tank, which is why ours do not put 152 mm.
    1. English tarantas
      English tarantas April 27 2021 06: 12
      0
      The caliber of 125 mm is the limit for a normal tank, which is why ours do not put 152 mm.

      That is why stupid soviet designers in the late 80s made a 152 tank cannon, they put it on the T-80, and oh my God, they made a boxer .... They were fools, not like our "rassiyskie" all in the mind.
      1. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev April 27 2021 20: 41
        0
        They experimented and came to the conclusion that 152 mm is a dead-end branch of development. Fools are those who believe that 152mm is the path to tank development. Maybe a specialized killer tank, like the Tiger, has a right to exist, but given how much it will cost, it is unlikely that someone will make an anti-tank.
        1. English tarantas
          English tarantas April 27 2021 21: 26
          0
          As far as I remember, they came to the conclusion that 80 climbs into the T-152 with difficulty, and therefore began to develop a tank immediately under 152, it was called the Boxer, and the boxer was turned off in Russia. Because you can't saw anything, and in fact the Boxer is the brainchild of the early 90s. , this is the one who does not want to understand that the last thing in the USSR they managed to do was with 152mm, they saw it as the future of tanks, and can only call Soviet designers fools.
          Specialized tank? When is the 3rd generation MBT already? What are you carrying, what kind of anti-tank, MBT includes the functions of combating armored vehicles, the only place where MBT as a class does not play is reconnaissance, raid functions and fire support for infantry in cases where MBT is redundant or difficult to apply, there are fire support vehicles: KT, BMP, armored personnel carriers and all sorts of newfangled armored vehicles
          1. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev April 28 2021 11: 55
            0
            Do you like the very concept of "generation"? The essence is important. MBT, with its fairly impenetrable cannon against the frontal armor, is poorly suited as an anti-tank weapon (if powerful tanks come out against it). The MBT for the Americans, for example, now plays the role of a mobile cannon, we have, in principle, the same, a means of supporting the infantry. There will be no tank battles, since modern tank armament has a short range of destruction of a tank (2 km if with shells) and, most importantly, tanks are expensive and there are few of them to risk them in a bargaining battle.
            The task of the MBT is (by Russian standards) to demolish the infantry in a weak spot of the enemy and into a breakthrough with a powerful blow, for this 125mm is normal, and 152mm is unnecessary, since it reduces the transported ammunition, with an insufficient increase in combat capabilities.
  8. Hermit21
    Hermit21 April 26 2021 09: 46
    0
    Complex of active protection (T-14 was received by KAZ "Afganit") now you will hardly surprise anyone

    Especially, all-delicious, knocking down the OBPS and affecting the incoming ammunition with the help of all kinds of moldings and jammers. Everyone has such.
    2A82 does not have a fundamental advantage over NATO guns

    2A82-1M, to be more precise. It's enough that it is 30% more powerful than the Rhl120L-55.
    what prevented from initially equipping it with a new cannon in order to get a truly revolutionary tank?

    Apparently, in the opinion of the author of the layout using the principle of shielding, the use of several types of DZ, including ADZ, active materials, an all-taste knockdown OBPS SAZ, the achieved level of automation of control and firing is not enough to be considered a revolutionary tank.

    2A83 will be delivered when 2A82-1M stops penetrating enemy tanks. And such will appear in the troops at least in 10-15 years.
  9. CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz April 26 2021 10: 42
    +2
    In the confrontation between Krupp - Schneider, I preferred Krupp :)
    And seriously. No larger caliber is needed but KAZ.
    1. Intruder
      Intruder April 26 2021 17: 35
      -1
      No larger caliber is needed but KAZ
      Again, it is expensive and not any ATGM, it will help!?, especially if the patrolling one "falls" from above into the MTO, subject to saturation of the target designation and selection channels .., KAZ is not a universal panacea, but compensation!
  10. mojohed2012
    mojohed2012 April 26 2021 13: 01
    0
    From the appearance of the French tank, you can see that there is no question of any automated uninhabited tower. The shells are unitary and again without an automatic loader, no matter who writes. Asashay's loaders are usually memes or afros, but who are the French?
    140 mm - such a long tube is more suitable for an SPG than for a main tank. I can imagine if this is not a field, but an area with buildings - they will break off this gun against buildings and fences.
    1. Intruder
      Intruder April 26 2021 17: 37
      -1
      as a rule, memes or afro, but who among the French?
      Well, how, too, French Arabs and Afro, for citizenship and by contract !? laughing
  11. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock April 26 2021 13: 11
    +1
    I just can't understand one thing, the most effective projectile against tanks is now BOPS, in order to increase armor penetration, you need to either increase the size of the BOPS (which cannot be done otherwise the projectile will not fit into the automatic loader) or increase the speed, why you cannot use powerful explosives in the shells to increase the initial the speed of the crowbar?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Intruder
      Intruder April 26 2021 17: 39
      0
      why can't powerful explosives be used in shells to increase the initial speed of the crowbar?
      will be released at the end, again an ATGM, only hypersonic and just expensive .. wink , military economy, is also a necessary science and dictates its own conditions!
  12. Irbiz123
    Irbiz123 April 26 2021 13: 20
    0
    Front sight looks cool on a tank
    1. Foul skeptic
      Foul skeptic April 26 2021 17: 04
      +2
      Front sight looks cool on a tank

      This is a barrel bend sensor
      1. Intruder
        Intruder April 27 2021 10: 51
        -1
        more precisely, an electro-optical sensor of coherent radiation, the radiation generator is on the top of the gun's mask, this is clearly visible in the picture! laughing
  13. Butchcassidy
    Butchcassidy April 26 2021 20: 21
    0
    Oh wey! And it would seem, what does Ashkelon have to do with it?))
  14. anclevalico
    anclevalico April 27 2021 07: 49
    0
    Armata doesn’t work anyway, what a new cannon there is.
  15. Basarev
    Basarev April 27 2021 11: 46
    -5
    The French were in vain worried. The armata will not become serial. Another propaganda parade tank, just like the T-35. Until the end of the person's terms, the miserable T-72 will remain the main one, for which even 125 mm is too much. I once heard that a very advanced 105 mm projectile is already capable of penetrating the T-72 even in the forehead.
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. Max PV
    Max PV April 27 2021 18: 15
    0
    Yes, it’s not our caliber, but a rickety separate tank shot! In terms of muzzle energy, domestic 125mm are not inferior to 120mm NATO, and when the barrel is lengthened and the transition to new powder, like theirs, can provide energy 10-20% higher. The trouble is in the length of the tungsten / uranium scrap, which in the NATO shot is limited to 750-800mm, and our maximum (without the ballistic cap, damper and tracer) is 550-600mm. Here, don't change the caliber, there will be no sense until the development of separate loading tank ammunition is prohibited.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 April 28 2021 19: 29
      -1
      Quote: Max PV
      Here, don't change the caliber, there will be no sense until the development of separate loading tank ammunition is prohibited.

      The T-90A and T-80BVM use an automatic loader, modernized for ultra-high elongation shots ZBM59 / 3BM60. This upgrade is not difficult, and is also possible on the T-72 series tanks.
      The cores of the ZBM59 / 3BM60 rounds have a length of 735-740mm, similar to the BOPSs of NATO projectiles, and almost the same armor penetration (although the DM53 is still ahead of the rest).
      As you can see, there is no particular problem in the separate loading shots.
  18. Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev April 27 2021 20: 08
    0
    The process of evolution in the tank sphere, as they say, the ice has moved. As a result, a new MBT of the 21st century of NATO armies will appear. Rearmament of armies, new sales abroad. The industry will be delighted.
  19. oppozite28
    oppozite28 April 28 2021 02: 40
    0
    In general, the appearance of a vehicle armed with a new 130-mm or 140-mm cannon among the Europeans (even if in the future) will be a challenge for Russia. The complex of active protection (the T-14 received the KAZ "Afganit") is no longer surprising to anyone, and the 125-mm 2A82 cannon installed on the new Russian tank does not have a fundamental advantage over the NATO cannons.
    The production and putting into service of the T-14 tank, in general, forced European (as well as American) manufacturers of armored vehicles to intensify work on the modernization of existing MBT models, with all the ensuing consequences (for example, mass-dimensional characteristics when installing a larger caliber gun and, accordingly, ammunition) such as, for example, mobility (an important aspect of a dynamic application in which the cross-country ability of MBT can become a decisive factor in a favorable outcome of the battle) .To offer in the near future a ready-made copy of the 5th generation tank (passed all types of tests), neither European nor American manufacturers unfortunately condition. Thunderous statements about progress in the development of 130-140 mm cannons inspire optimism in Western armored vehicle manufacturers, but nothing more. Attention is drawn to the fact that the requirements of the technical specifications for the American and European tanks of the 5th generation were not formed. The symbiosis of the French and German schools of tank building when combining Leclerc and Leopard 2 tanks does not hold water. request
  20. Just a Traveler
    Just a Traveler April 28 2021 14: 53
    0
    The question of cost here arises in full growth.
  21. mister-red
    mister-red 2 May 2021 14: 43
    0
    However, a completely natural question arises: what prevented from initially equipping it with a new cannon in order to get a truly revolutionary tank? Without any "buts" and vague plans for the future.

    Is there such a cannon? If the Germans put 130mm on the old tank, and the Frenchman 140mm, what prevents them from installing a more powerful gun on the T-14? Everything does not always work out right away.
  22. Lew
    Lew 4 May 2021 09: 35
    0
    A powerful cannon, this is certainly good, but there is little point from a tank if a less weak cannon also penetrates it ...?