Again about whether the tank needs a 152-mm gun

Disputes and discussions about whether tank The 152-mm gun has been underway for more than a dozen years, but almost all of them boiled down to the fact that this caliber should be a worthy response to the growth in the security of NATO armored vehicles. If you drive the corresponding query into the search engine, then most of the materials found on this topic will be full of in fact the same fashionable phrases about the “meter of burnt armor”, elongated sub-caliber and even nuclear shells, as well as about how the crew of the American Abrams is in a panic leaves his car when he sees a Russian tank with a huge barrel.

steel sledgehammer

However, with the start of a special military operation, the rhetoric began to change dramatically with the transition to a "high-explosive fragmentation spectrum of tasks." Suddenly (not for everyone) it turned out that tanks do not always fight against tanks, although here it would even be more appropriate to say - rarely. This trend was clearly defined by the example of the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, when the number of lost tanks from anti-tank systems amounted to 50% of the total losses, and only 22% fell to the share of enemy tank fire. The remaining 28% were divided among themselves aviation, hand grenade launchers and mines.

In general, there were no massive tank raids in Ukraine. But there were quite expected constant assaults on the positions of Ukrainian units, entrenched in settlements and fortified areas. In this situation, tanks increasingly, although not always, began to play the role of a steel “sledgehammer”, quite typical for themselves, knocking out enemy manpower hidden in trenches, buildings and structures.

In connection with these circumstances, some experts have once again raised the question of the advisability of arming tanks with 152-mm guns, whose shells are superior in their high-explosive and fragmentation action to the serial 125-mm gun. Sometimes it even reaches the point of absurdity. Thus, a military historian and researcher artillery and armored vehicles Shirokorad in one of his recent materials gave a completely fantastic thesis that tanks should be equipped with barrels from the SAU "Msta-S", while making them interchangeable with the "native" 125-mm guns, providing a large angle of elevation of the gun and introducing into the automatic loader the ability to use propellant charges of different powder weights. How to implement all this in the volumes of a tank, at least theoretically - we will leave on the conscience of the author.

Theoretically, a 152 mm gun would have looked much more advantageous than a 125 mm caliber, but with great conventions.

There is no doubt about the high-explosive power of large-caliber shells. For clarity, you can make a simple, although not completely correct comparison with Msta-S ammunition. Thus, in the 3OF45 "Vicarious" projectile for self-propelled guns, the explosive weight is 7,65 kilograms, while the 125-mm 3OF26 high-explosive fragmentation projectile contains 3,4 kg of explosives. The incorrectness of this comparison lies in the fact that 152-mm high-explosive fragmentation projectiles of a smoothbore gun, and it is this type of gun that has real prospects for installation on a tank, will carry a slightly lower explosive charge due to the tail, which eats away the useful length of the projectile, as well as , possibly a higher muzzle velocity than the self-propelled gun. However, the difference is still obvious.

A ballistic mount with a 152 mm 2A83 smoothbore gun is the only one possible for installation in tanks in today's realities. Source: alternathistory.com

Against fortifications, as well as in urban areas and industrial areas, a 152-mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile will be much more useful. In particular, this applies to those cases when it is simply impossible to smoke out an enemy constantly moving around the building with aimed shots. The experience of such local conflicts as the war in Syria and Chechnya shows that sometimes the enemy left no choice but to collapse the floors or entire entrances of the building with shell fire in order to destroy it. The same, in general, was repeated at the Azovstal Mariupol plant, when workshops and other buildings had to be ironed with almost everything that was at hand.

But the openly located manpower of the enemy still remains a higher priority, in the fight against which it is not the shock wave that comes to the fore, but the fragmentation field from the detonation of the projectile. Due to the larger hull size and explosive charge, 152 mm ammunition produces more lethal fragments, and their dispersion is wider. The advantage over 125-mm shells, although not overwhelming, is significant.

Already done or not yet?

So, is the traditional domestic tank caliber already all or not yet?

Fortunately, the caliber has not yet become obsolete, but requires significant modernization and innovation. High-explosive fragmentation shells themselves are outdated, the anti-personnel capabilities of which are far from being at a high level. The fact is that shells of this type are actually a hollow steel blank into which an explosive is poured. Due to the fact that their body is made in a cylindrical shape, the bulk of the fragments formed during the explosion scatters perpendicular to its axis. Considering that the tank is not a self-propelled gun, and often works on the principle of “I see - I shoot”, firing along a flat trajectory, up to a third of all fragments fly into the ground and into the sky without causing any damage to the enemy.

Sometimes, in order to somehow hit the target, experienced tankers are forced to fire with a ricochet, when the trajectory of the projectile is chosen in such a way that when it hits the ground, it flies up and detonates at a certain height. The situation is the same with infantry sheltered behind parapets or in trenches.

From the memoirs of the tankers, one can cite a characteristic episode of the Chechen campaign. At some distance, the enemy is located, covered with a parapet. They fired one shot at him from a tank - flight, the second shot - short flight. It's good that a tree grew near the enemy position. They gave him high-explosive fragmentation in his crown. He detonated on the barrel and doused a hail of fragments of the entrenched militants. So the target was hit.

The solution to this problem should be the mass production of projectiles with ready-made submunitions. One of them is 3OF82 Telnik. It is a deeply modernized version of the classic 125-mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile, in the bow of which, by reducing the weight of the explosive to 3 kilograms, a block with ready-made striking elements in the amount of 450 pieces is installed, as well as an electronic contact-remote fuse. It can be used by almost all modern main tanks of Russia after being equipped with the appropriate equipment.

Scheme 3OF82 "Telnik". Source: btvtinfo.blogspot.com

Although Telnik can also work as a regular OFS, its main advantage is the possibility of an air blast. To do this, the distance to the target is measured, and the induction programmer automatically introduces the desired delay into the fuse. A detonated projectile strikes enemy manpower in closed and open positions with fragments from its own hull and ready-made submunitions. The anti-personnel capabilities of the novelty are about 6–8 times higher than those of a conventional 125-mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile, so that the “urgent need” for a large caliber fades into the background. However, taking into account all the nuances of the introduction of 152-mm guns, including the reduced tank ammunition, “background” is too mild a wording.

Also, the question of introducing a thermobaric projectile into the tank ammunition was repeatedly raised. Based on the experience of using it in various military conflicts, it is known that ammunition of this class in terms of high-explosive impact is superior to classic ones with high-explosive filling. An example here is the RPO-M "Shmel-M", the warhead of which, with a diameter of 90 mm and a mass of fire mixture of 3 kg, provides an explosion with a power of 5–6 kg in TNT equivalent. Therefore, a projectile created within the framework of a 125-mm caliber can be at least half as effective as a 152-mm high-explosive when firing at buildings and structures. Whether they will do it or not is a question, but the prospects are interesting.

The caliber is far from dead, and its future is clearer than that of the 152 mm, which is hindered by production, financial and structural issues.

Supporters of 152-mm guns very often cite as an example an experienced tank "Object 292", which is a deep modernization of the "eighties" with the installation of a high-pulse 152-mm LP-83 gun. The special advantages of this machine are allegedly ease of execution and the absence of the need for alteration of the chassis. But the fact is that for this tank it was necessary to design a new turret with a rear niche, change the location of the ammo racks and change the gun loading mechanism. As a result, all this turned out to be so unbalanced that the frontal part of the tower had to be scalded with rectangular counterweights. In addition, the design of the turret ring was actually re-created, since the old one could not withstand shock loads.

"Object 292". Visible aft niche and massive counterweights in the frontal part of the tower. Source: commons.wikimedia.org

As a demonstrator of the fact that they were able to cram what seemed impossible on the surface - yes, but is it possible to apply this in a series, given all the nuances - no. And if you look at it from the point of view of modern realities, when a panoramic thermal imaging sight / observation device cannot be installed on a tank in order to save money, such adventures of a dubious nature in the form of installing a larger caliber gun on the T-72 or T-90 look completely fantastic .

Also, with a high degree of probability, it can be argued that the 152-mm gun will not be used in the T-14 "Armata", at least in the version of the tank that is now. From open sources it is known that this tank is equipped with an automatic loader with a vertical arrangement of shells, so when installing a combat module with a gun of this caliber, problems may arise: shells of a larger elongation simply do not fit in height, which will entail changes in the dimensions of the hull, or to use a new type of mechanized laying. The consequence of both will be a change in the design of the combat vehicle, although the tracked platform itself is truly universal.

Also, do not ignore the reduction in the ammunition of the first stage, located in the automatic loader of a tank with a six-inch gun. For example, in the T-14 "Armata" it can be 25 percent, when compared with the standard 125-mm 2A82-1M.

No less difficulties for large caliber and mass. So, for the most promising 152-mm 2A83, it reaches five tons, while for 2A82-1M it is 2700 kg. And all this against the background of a reduced barrel resource, which, with the current capabilities, is quite difficult to bring to the level, although not standard, but acceptable 500-600 shots.

Final World

What can be concluded from all of the above? The advantages of 152-mm guns are really undeniable, both in terms of high penetration of armor-piercing shells, and in anti-personnel business. One way or another, evolutionarily we will come to this anyway. But later, probably not in this decade, and maybe not in the next. And certainly not within the framework of the tanks that we have now.

At the moment, the capabilities of 125-mm guns are far from being fully exhausted. When using modern ammunition, they are really enough for everything from defeating tanks and ending with the fight against enemy manpower. The 2A82-1M gun mounted on the T-14 tank can serve as a demonstrator of this point of view. High muzzle energy in combination with an arsenal of new sub-caliber, cumulative and fragmentation (with ready-made striking elements) shells can significantly extend the life of the caliber. And most importantly - to reduce the cost of production and operation, than a six-inch can not boast.

Comments

[Shark Lover]

So there is, or was, a 3sh1 shell. I have seen him work live. On the other side, the slope of the mountain overgrown with forest is greenery. Arta ensured our retreat, or rather, even running away (it happened, we went out at night, blossomed and saw 400 meters away, there were a lot of bad people on the slopes.) They started to leave, along the green, they began to hit us with artillery. In general, he looked back on the run, the brilliant green is cut out directly and clouds of gaps in the air. My soldier flew in from above, a needle stuck into the tip of his nose. They poked it out immediately and examined it, a small plumage and a metal needle, like a grenade striker, approximately.

[insafufa]

3Sh2 - 152-mm is included in the equipment set of the SAU 2S3 and needs to be given precise target designation, since the effective range of detonation is ideally 100 m, varies + - within 10 m. The average accuracy of the flow is 5-10 pieces per 1 sq. m. The results you describe indicate that the detonation time was calculated incorrectly and the detonation was almost point-blank. I agree, a terrible thing in the hands of a competent person pierces the upper armor sheets of the BMP - 1,2 through and through. from a detonation distance of 100 m

[Shark Lover]

I did not know that there is 3sh2 152 mm. They screwed up, yes. Here is the one that flew into the nose, it seems that they rushed somewhere above us and something fell down.

[insafufa]

I forgot to write the letter B

There is still a lot of stuff on the Internet, even the old manual from the old days is walking around. But we had something very similar in training.

This Technical Description and Operating Instructions are intended to study the design and proper operation of 152-mm ZVSH2, ZVSH5 rounds with a projectile filled with ZSH2 swept elements, and are an addition to the service manuals “152-mm howitzer-gun mod. 1937 and 122 mm gun mod. 1931/37" and "152-mm gun-howitzer D-20".
The ZVSH2, ZVSH5 rounds with the ZSH2 projectile are included in the ammunition load of the 152-mm howitzer-gun mod. 1937 and 152-mm D-20 howitzer guns and are designed to destroy openly located enemy manpower at the entire firing range.

[avg]

In the early 80s, exercises were conducted and several TB and SMEs were preparing in the VO and GV for an offensive "under an umbrella", i.e. following the explosions of shells with ready-made submunitions. Unfortunately, much of that experience has been lost.

[Vladimir_2U]

a slightly lower explosive charge due to the tail, which eats away the useful length of the projectile, and also, possibly, a higher muzzle velocity than that of the self-propelled gun.

The author is not entirely right, a projectile for a smooth barrel, unlike a rifled one, can be much longer in calibers. By the way, this can be seen in the photo, if you fold back the shank, then the projectile is about the same as for a 122 mm rifled gun.

[insafufa]

HE The power of the ammunition can be increased by using a mixture of explosives in the HE projectile. So shells from Hyacinth B and C with a caliber of 152 mm and practically the same weight as all other HE shells with Acacia, Msta C and B and D-20 have a power equal to a TNT shell of 180mm caliber. also, shells from Nona also have similar indicators in terms of power equal to 152 mm shells equipped with TNT. For this reason, cases of fires after the use of Non and Hyacinths are not uncommon.

[Trunk]

Thank you for an insightful presentation of a difficult topic.

[Graz]

I believe that development work on the 152 mm tank gun, turret, automatic loader should be carried out, I don’t think that there are directly huge costs for this, but time will tell whether production and delivery to the troops will be required or not, it will be better if we have development in stash than it won't be

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Graz

I believe that development work on the 152 mm tank gun, turret, automatic loader should be carried out

So it all already exists. Object 195 (T-95, in the top photo in the article) was tested and was ready to be accepted into service, but was not put into service (credit to Serdyukov).

[demiurg]

Of course 152mm on a tank is better than 125mm. And even better to attach 203mm. And screw an Iskander to the side of the turret.

A tank in the city would not fit in with large depression angles, and they will not be superfluous on hilly terrain. And a larger ammo rack. And to destroy buildings, you can use a Kornet with a thermobar. Or battalion/regimental artillery.

I think from my couch, tanks are going down in history, following the Airborne Forces. And both are used, but only because they exist, and not because they are so wonderful.
The same squad/platoon asks a tank to destroy an entrance/floor/support because their APC/IFV does not have powerful weapons on board, and their armor is like well, you know what type. And the platoon commander will transmit the target lines to the battalion artillery until Makovka's fast.

[Baron pardus]

Before the Great Patriotic War, our unfortunate designers played with universal guns: Divisional anti-aircraft USVs, which were bad as anti-aircraft guns, and as divisions were not so hot. Soup is eaten with a spoon, and cutlets with a fork. This was understood during the Second World War by both the Americans and the Germans. The Americans tritely shoved a 105mm howitzer into the Sherman tower, and a good one, the EMNIP with the same howitzer, the American army reached the war in Yugoslavia (But, of course, not in Sherman). The Germans shoved 105mm howitzers into self-propelled guns, but at the same time they created Brumbar. Self-propelled gun with 150mm howitzer. Booked that your Tiger, or rather even more (the armor was tilted). So it seems to me that you need to do as the Germans did. Here is a tank. Here is an assault weapon. On a modern shtug, you can put a 152 or 155mm short-barreled howitzer (it's not a self-propelled guns, but a direct support assault gun) in the wheelhouse, well, in short, look at the BRUMBAR. Well, put something smaller on the tank. It's clear that the time of the 125mm gun is coming to an end. (We don’t even say that you don’t have modern BOPS en masse in your troops). I do not know how much the latest model of your 125mm is inferior or superior to the German 120 L55. I will not speak. But there is no doubt that even your newest 125mm cannon is inferior to both the German 130mm and the French 140mm. A tank is not an assault gun, a self-propelled gun is not a tank, an assault gun is also not a tank or self-propelled gun. Each has its own niche. You now have a tank zoo with 3 MBT models in service, your generals have heard about such a word as supply and logistics, no? Moreover, all 3 tanks have the same gun. Who was laughing at the Germans that they had 2 medium tanks and 2 heavy ones, what kind of fools were the Germans that they put so many models into production? If industry and troops more or less, at least outwardly, cope with 3 different MBTs, then they obviously will not suffer from ONE MBT and an assault gun on its chassis.

By the way, NOTHING prevents you from giving the assault gun the ability to launch ATGMs through the barrel. Your designers have a HUGE experience in this. In the USA, there was a 152mm howitzer / PU pturs, Israel has ATGMs launched through gun barrels, be it 105mm or 120mm. (naturally, Israel has it, in the same place a quarter of those who were from the USSR with their education received in the USSR before the collapse of the education system in Russia, what they did in the USSR they calmly repeated in Israel, the people leaving took out everything that could be useful for making money in Israel or there in the USA, absolutely everything, from the formulas of Kefir to documentation and patents for purely military purposes).
Caliber ATGM TOU-152mm, Caliber ATGM HOT - 150mm, Caliber 9K115-2 130mm, Caliber 9M133 152mm (Same as TOU-2).

[Victor Leningradets]

Colleague!
But it’s true what they say - eccentrics think alike!

[Pavel57]

Thus, the division of the tank fleet into the following types of vehicles is clearly overdue:
1. Infantry, to support infantry in all conditions of modern combat in the field and urban areas.
2. Cruising for action in breakthrough and raid operations.
3. Tank destroyers.
4. Special assault vehicles......

The conservatism of the military will not allow this.

[Igorash]

In no case ... The main battle tank is the best qualification for all cases of hostilities ... It is impossible to accurately predict and keep in the right direction various kinds of combat missions for different purposes. After completing the immediate task, the units perform subsequent ones, etc. Situation it changes simply unpredictably ... WWII and local conflicts on the planet proved the inefficiency of highly specialized tanks ... Do you think why the Lotus is being tested for so long ...

[Konnick]

Colleague!
But it’s true what they say - eccentrics think alike!

Well, why do weirdos? For normal-minded people ... I also already wrote that Brumbar-type self-propelled guns are needed to escort infantry.

[bk0010]

Our unfortunate designers played with universal guns: Divisional anti-aircraft USVs, which were bad as anti-aircraft guns, and as divisions were not so hot.

We had a complete problem with anti-aircraft guns ... We tried to resolve the issue by all means.

Soup is eaten with a spoon, and cutlets with a fork. This was understood during the Second World War by both the Americans and the Germans.

But the same Americans then mastered for the fleet to make a universal 127-mm gun, which they are very pleased with. But the British did not master it and made anti-aircraft guns separately, counter-destroyers - separately, which did not improve the situation on the ship (or that little or that).

[Alf]

Quote: bk0010

We had a complete problem with anti-aircraft guns ... We tried to resolve the issue by all means.

Wrong. Yes, it was bad with anti-aircraft guns in the Red Army in the late 30s, but the creation of universal guns has nothing to do with the creation of anti-aircraft guns.

[bk0010]

Quote: Alf

Yes, it was bad with anti-aircraft guns in the Red Army in the late 30s, but the creation of universal guns has nothing to do with the creation of anti-aircraft guns.

Everyone had a bad time with anti-aircraft guns until the states converted Bofors into a conveyor belt. We had a bad time with anti-aircraft guns of normal calibers, so we tried to somehow solve the problem.

[spirit]

You give FV4505 Based on Almaty) or remake old tanks. The Brits managed to shove such a "shed" into their Centurion and we will shove it) With exceptionally high-explosive ammo. Everything is new, well-forgotten old

[Alf]

Quote: Baron Pardus

Our mountain designers played with universal guns:

Let's clarify, did the designers play or did the designers FOLLOW the order of the military, creating these under-anti-aircraft guns?

Quote: Baron Pardus

both German 130mm and French 140mm -

Is our real 2A46 inferior to the painted German and French guns? Original...

[Baron pardus]

Learn materiel. The German 130mm cannon has not only been tested, but also installed in the PANTHER and Challenger 2 tanks. It is completely ready for mass production. The information is even on this site. Moreover, the German 130mm cannon can easily be placed in the Leopard 2 turret and can be installed there at will.
The French NEXTER 140mm cannon is installed in the Leclerc tank and has been tested. So the Germans and the French have nothing drawn. Learn the materiel before you start a dispute.

[Alf]

Quote: Baron Pardus

Learn the materiel before you start a dispute.

The fact that they were created is wonderful, and now show a photo of these guns on tanks in serial quantities.

[Baron pardus]

My dear, you do not play around and dodge. You claimed that the German and French guns - Painted - it turned out to be a lie and you were poked into this lie. Now you demand to show where they are in mass production. Once again I say - learn the mat part. The Germans have a long 120mm cannon and, most importantly, modern BOPS, which Russia almost doesn’t have from the word, but what they have does not fit into the AZ on most tanks. So far, there is no need to spend money and change the relatively new 120mm L55 to completely new 130mm or 140mm there. For a 130mm gun, you don’t even need a new turret, it fits into Leopard 2. In Germany, they know how to count money and 3 different MBTs are not kept in service. So when necessary, they will put 130mm in a leopard. And the way you changed your shoes on the fly and from the statement "they are painted" quickly started about "mass production" smiled at me. The drain is protected. Learn the mat part. Write less and read more.

[yuriy55]

Quote: Baron Pardus

The Germans have a long 120mm gun and most importantly, modern BOPS, which Russia does not have from the word almost none,

Teach materiel:
Subcaliber shells present and future
https://topwar.ru/145698-podkalibernye-snarjady-nastojaschego-i-buduschego.html

[wlkw]

Quote: Baron Pardus

You now have a tank zoo with 3 MBT models in service, your generals have heard about such a word as supply and logistics, no? Moreover, all 3 tanks have the same gun.

As they say, "the owl is slightly stretched over the globe." As I understand it, we are talking about T-72, -80, -90?
But the T-90 is a deep modernization of the T-72, this is a completely natural and very correct thing. It was possible for you not to change the number, just add the letter "M" with the next number. T-80 - yes, the original design, we decided to indulge in a gas turbine engine.
Estimates are very contradictory, but in any case, it is no longer produced, well, in general, this is a creation of the past long ago. Now, if all three tanks were riveted in our country at the same time, at three different factories, it would really be a madhouse.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Baron Pardus

A tank is not an assault gun, a self-propelled gun is not a tank, an assault gun is also not a tank or self-propelled gun.

An assault gun or an assault tank has been needed for a long time. And in the current war in Ukraine, an assault tank would be simply irreplaceable. With a 152 mm howitzer or a mortar like Nona, but with a caliber of 160 mm, it would be good both in urban agglomerations and when working on light field shelters.
On enemy tanks, ATGMs through the barrel. You can adapt the already used T-72, 80.
Now, in the absence of an assault tank (gun), often the main tanks work on strong points from closed positions. Note that it is not very efficient.

[Victor Leningradets]

Thanks Edward for the article.
The trouble is that the military and designers have been trying for half a century to create an invulnerable and all-damaging MBT, not realizing that both requirements are impossible at the same time. As a result, the main tanks turned into a kind of gladiators, adapted for combat with their own kind, poor infantry assistants.
Let's start with invulnerability.
Why do you need tank armor? Well, why - to keep the BOPS of the tank gun of a potential enemy (on the forehead). That is, for a duel on a collision course (unconditional death flies into the sides and stern). So, in fact, tankers are taught to act - to hit tanks on the side, and without wasting time turning to the enemy with a frontal projection, so frontal protection is in many ways purely moral support. Moreover, even the impenetrable protection of a 70-ton vehicle does not save the crew when hit by a solid high-explosive 152-mm projectile. Our teacher of labor as a young lieutenant managed to fight in East Prussia. It was great there from ambushes in the rear of the "Royal Tigers" - they shot T-34s both in columns and in deployed formation. They shoot and slowly crawl back into cover. Then the command in dangerous areas, not on a direct shot, put several SU-152s (he said so, maybe they were ISU-152s), and sent a spotter to each T-34 platoon. When they ran into an ambush, the thirty-four did not accept the battle, but rushed in all directions. The spotters gave target designation and the SU-152 bombarded the tigers with shells. In short, two of them remained on the field. After the tankers examined the enemy vehicles - not a single hole, only potholes, And the crews are dead! Died from concussion on impact.
Let's not talk about the latest generation of ATGMs. They actually turned the tanks into dangerous for their infantry lined with explosives and striking elements of the pillbox. And all these KAZs are still overcome, and the tank itself is destroyed, often with the detonation of ammunition. Actually "Armata" - an attempt to play the game "tank dead - crew - alive", confirms the impasse in the development of the MBT concept. Well, the cherry on the cake is helplessness against helicopters and drones.
Now let's move on to weapons.
All 120 - 125 mm tank guns are sharpened only to hit an enemy vehicle with the first shot from a maximum distance. Hence - the monstrous ballistics of these guns (by the way - to the detriment of accuracy). As for the combined cumulative-fragmentation projectiles and simply high-explosive fragmentation, the comparison of their damaging effect and accuracy with the 152-mm analogue of self-propelled howitzers is incorrect, due to the different method of application. On a tank, it is a means of defeating threats to the tank itself - infantry, either openly located or in an impromptu shelter. The fight against serious fortifications is the lot of self-propelled and towed artillery, so the MBT, engaged in the defeat of fortifications, runs the risk of becoming a target for enemy anti-tank weapons, without having solved the problem. In urban areas, the long barrel of a gun is simply a hindrance, since the range of a direct shot here is excessive even for old 100-mm tank guns.
Thus, the division of the tank fleet into the following types of vehicles is clearly overdue:
1. Infantry, to support infantry in all conditions of modern combat in the field and urban areas.
2. Cruising for action in breakthrough and raid operations.
3. Tank destroyers.
4. Special assault vehicles.
Moreover, the former should just be well protected from ATGMs, safe for operations together with infantry, not have fantastic speed, and most importantly, carry powerful weapons with moderate ballistics. In principle, we have such an armament complex - self-propelled guns-152-mm Akatsiya. In terms of armament, it is ideal in the field and in urban areas. The only thing missing is solid protection and electronics. To fight armored vehicles at a distance (a secondary task) - a barrel ATGM, in close combat - a regular projectile is a completely lethal argument. The main thing is that it can be created through a deep modernization of the existing T-62, T-72 by installing a turret box and strengthening the undercarriage, a low silhouette for an infantry tank is not a priority. With the development of combat experience, requirements for a promising vehicle can be formed

[Viktor Sergeev]

Rather, not assault, but defensive, so that the front could be quickly strengthened. The assault installation must have armor around the entire perimeter, and this is difficult.

[Knell wardenheart]

The problem with assault and heavy tanks at the present time is that the ammunition can be made very intelligent and very accurate, it is also possible to play around with its armor penetration sufficiently to prevent really effective armor in all potentially affected directions. After all, now the tank is hit from above, and from the sides and behind - both from UAVs, helicopters, aircraft, and personal infantry weapons such as the same Javelin.
Moreover, the cost of such weapons is now several orders of magnitude lower than the cost of such a tank.
Under these conditions, the task of eliminating the incapacitation of an assault or heavy tank seems to me practically unrealizable. Even if it is possible to achieve the impossibility in most cases of incapacitation of the crew, engine or detonation of ammunition, there remain external components of the tank, sufficient armor or hardening of which is excluded. Specifically, caterpillars, situational awareness equipment, a gun and a joint between the turret and the hull. In the case of an assault tank, situational awareness equipment will go out of action in the forefront, and resp. the effectiveness of solutions such as KAZ or exposure detection, as well as the overall ability of the tank to effectively inflict damage, will fall. Protecting enough tracks seems to me an inevitable destruction of the compromise between their security and maintainability in combat conditions. Increasing security, despite the fact that it is unlikely that it will be possible to achieve truly satisfactory parameters, apparently will significantly reduce maintainability, because solutions for protecting caterpillars will have to combine their cardinal processing and deepening into the sides.

Theoretically, the ST should rely heavily on external target designation and awareness (UAV), since only in this case it will be possible to make its upper projection sufficiently protected. However, the problem of destroying the gun and the junction of the hull and turret will remain - unless we go along the Swedish path (such as Strv 103) by debuffing the tank and deepening its gun as much as possible.

All this is nothing more than abstract reasoning. In general, I agree with your thesis that the MBT concept has practically exhausted itself - modern technology should either follow the path of separating types, or the path of expanding modularity, which provides for the possibility of flexible retrofitting of the "body kit" of an abstract product to complete unrecognizability, with a radical boost of characteristics (including in the field).

[Viktor Sergeev]

You need something with heavy-duty forehead and roof protection, with a 152-millimeter cannon capable of being a mobile pillbox.

[demiurg]

Already now tanks with protection from current threats in safe maneuvering angles have crawled up to 70 tons. You propose to armor the roof with the same cast iron layer. That's another 20-30 tons. Plus a boom, ammo for it, reinforced suspension. The weight will easily go well over 100 tons.
And then they'll make an ATGM, the missile of which flies under the tank. And someone will write, let's make the bottom 500-700 mm lower.

[Viktor Sergeev]

I propose to almost abandon the protection of the sides, which will significantly reduce the weight and throw the liberated on the forehead and roof. There will be no anti-tank systems flying under the bottom. You are not attentive, I suggested creating something like a mobile pillbox, as a result there will be no need to heavily armor the bottom, and the lower part of the frontal projection. Now such machines, oh, would be useful.

[demiurg]

If you don't have armor on the sides, they will puncture the sides. A good fragment from a 152mm shell exploding 10 meters from the tank exceeds 14.5 in energy.

[agond]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

Thus, the division of the tank fleet into the following types of vehicles is clearly overdue:
1. Infantry, to support infantry in all conditions of modern combat in the field and urban areas.
2. Cruising for action in breakthrough and raid operations.
3. Tank destroyers.
4. Special assault vehicles

Absolutely right, you need a specialized tool for a specific task, and military equipment is often made universal or, as they like to say, multi-purpose, forgetting that this is, in principle, an unattainable goal. Supporters of universality, try to take one "multi-purpose" adjustable wrench instead of a set of open-end and socket wrenches and disassemble, for example, a Zhiguli engine with it.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Quote: Victor Sergeev

capable of being a mobile pillbox.

Congratulations, you have invented the Mouse (version 2.0).

[Alf]

Quote: Victor Sergeev

You need something with heavy-duty forehead and roof protection, with a 152-millimeter cannon capable of being a mobile pillbox.

And with a nuclear reactor as an engine, because a diesel engine with the required power has not yet been created.

[Tank destroyerSU-100]

Or maybe you should not fence the garden and create a good old assault gun with a 152-mm cannon? The absence of a turret will save weight; it will be possible to place a mechanized ammo rack in the fighting compartment. If the main purpose of such self-propelled guns is field fortifications, buildings, infantry fire weapons, then it can move BEHIND the battle formations of motorized infantry, firing direct fire.
And you can create an assault gun in the layout of the 2S3 self-propelled guns, but on a tank chassis, with appropriate protection. The only thing is to consider layout options either with a fixed cabin or with a rotating tower.
To create such a duplex: a 152-mm assault gun and a tank support combat vehicle with 30-mm 2A38 assault rifles from the Tunguska anti-aircraft missile system, anti-tank systems and an automatic grenade launcher. For these machines to work in tandem: the 152-mm gun destroys fortifications, and the BMPT destroys what has survived in the ruins.

[Viktor Sergeev]

It is estimated that the absence of a turret only increases the weight, since the cabin is large in width, plus the gun has meager horizontal aiming angles.

[Victor Leningradets]

The 152-mm caliber is not intended for assault operations, but for infantry support in all types of combat (including for urban conditions). An assault tank is something like a "Sturmtiger", only with lighter special-purpose ammunition for destroying especially protected targets. The concept is a shot and the enemy is briefly destroyed. There are no other purposes for this machine. And it can weigh as much as necessary, as it is a special tool, presented in limited quantities with the appropriate transport support.

[Zaurbek]

It is important to understand that no one makes many new tanks.....and it would be desirable to put a new gun with a new caliber in our T-72 and T-90.....that's what NATO did with the 130mm caliber. With the increase in the accuracy of GLONASS corr shells (which we don't have yet even in 152mm caliber) and 125mm HE shell will do a lot of bad things.

[DenVB]

sometimes the enemy left no choice but to collapse the floors or entire entrances of the building with shell fire in order to destroy it.

An inexpensive self-propelled gun, say, 2C3, located 2-5 kilometers behind the line of clashes, will perfectly cope with this. It is only necessary to create a battlefield CIUS that allows this self-propelled guns to immediately fire at target designation from tanks or infantry. The fighter sees that a machine gun is firing from the window of the house opposite, points the tablet at the house, pokes his finger into this window on the display - the software calculates the location of the target using a 3D terrain model and gives a solution for firing. Ten seconds later, a heavy howitzer shell arrives at the right window. Not enough? Select "repeat in one gulp" from the menu. Ten seconds later, a battery salvo arrives.

By the way, it would be nice to introduce charges into the ammunition load of self-propelled guns that allow firing at an "ultra-low" initial speed - about 100 meters per second. This will allow her, even when firing from short distances - 2-3 kilometers - to "throw" shells over houses and hit targets near the ground. The automation of the gun may not work, but this is not so scary. In extreme cases, the shutter can also be opened manually. Or improve automation.

[demiurg]

Ninada small charge. There are 120mm mortars.

[DenVB]

Quote: demiurg

Ninada small charge. There are 120mm mortars.

Talented argument. I wouldn't have thought of it.

[Alf]

Quote: demiurg

Ninada small charge. There are 120mm mortars.

And the calculation is covered with armor, and it moves quickly ...

[Realist58]

For this, guns on a liquid propellant mixture are needed.

[air wolf]

During the tests of the T-72 in the USA, he fired a landmine at Abrams in the forehead, the Abram was gone ... read the sources!

[insafufa]

Also, the question of introducing a thermobaric projectile into the tank ammunition was repeatedly raised. Based on the experience of using it in various military conflicts, it is known that ammunition of this class in terms of high-explosive impact is superior to classic ones with high-explosive filling. An example here is the RPO-M "Shmel-M", the warhead of which, with a diameter of 90 mm and a mass of fire mixture of 3 kg, provides an explosion with a power of 5–6 kg in TNT equivalent. Therefore, a projectile created within the framework of a 125-mm caliber can be at least half as effective as a 152-mm high-explosive when firing at buildings and structures. Whether they will do it or not is a question, but the prospects are interesting.

I agree with you on this issue, but the projectile will most likely be guided based on guided missile weapons launched from a gun barrel. And the reason for the impossibility of using a thermobaric mixture in high-impulse guns is the risk of the mixture self-detonating or compacting, which nullifies the projectile itself.
It is possible to create a projectile similar to the Cherry projectile for the BMP-3.
And there is still the possibility of creating a gun like the Nona gun with ready-made smoothbore rifling, then there is a chance to create a gun capable of using ammunition from the guns of the T-72,80 and 90 tanks together with new shells devoid of stabilizers, due to which it is possible to increase the weight of the explosive.

[Prometey]

We need new technologies and a transition to energy weapons.

[Alf]

Quote: Prometey

We need new technologies and a transition to energy weapons.

All that's left is the energy...

[Flurry]

Well, then it can develop the topic further - install a 152 mm rifled rifle with large angles on the tank, and the entire automated ammunition rack in the turret store. Then he will be able to use the existing arsenal of 152 rifled rifles (logistics is drastically simplified) for direct support of the infantry, he will be able to launch ATGMs through the barrel to fight enemy tanks (although you can try a crowbar through adapters), reinforced armor + KAZ and weight up to 60 tons.

[AAK]

The introduction of a 152-mm cannon into a tank turret is a question for engineering thinkers and is far from paramount in the situation that is developing on the Ukrainian fronts, much more important, in my opinion, is the urgent forcing of the production of "Coalitions", the range and power of which are urgently needed now in battle, and not at parades, and half of them can be done on the "Armatov" platform, at the same time the tests will pass, while there are problems with the tank ...

[Per se.]

Also, with a high degree of probability, it can be argued that the 152-mm gun will not be used in the T-14 "Armata", at least in the version of the tank that is now.

The irony is that the T-14 of the "Armata" platform was just taken from the "Object 195" (T-95), which was created under the 152 mm 2A83 gun.

But, the almost ready-made super tank was "banned" by Serdyukov's team in April 2010. In particular, the great "reformers" in the person of Mr. Popovkin noted that the tank was "morally obsolete" and "difficult for conscripts", and, of course, too expensive.

The 700 million remaining in the project were spared for fine-tuning the tank, but for the "unparalleled", 64 billion were unfastened only for R&D and R&D of the raw "platform-headset". Now, it turns out that on the T-14 (budget version from the T-95) it is hardly possible to put a 152 mm gun...

The fact that the 120-125 mm caliber had exhausted itself was clear back in the late 80s of the last century, which is why the USSR began to develop projects for the 152 mm gun.

What other options are there? Probably, this is a self-propelled gun, including, it would be possible to use a mastodon, BMP T-15 "Armata", as an anti-tank self-propelled gun for a 152 mm gun. For a long distance, like a tank destroyer, it would be fine.

Another option is a return to the theme of the "rocket tank", as IT-1 was. An improved version could have been made on the T-72/T-90 chassis. Here, the main caliber will be already compact rockets, not inferior in power to 152 mm shells, and the auxiliary weapons will be an automatic 57 mm cannon. It is the gun that gives the main weight; for a "rocket tank", saving in weight can significantly increase protection.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Well, the current "rocket tank" is Chrysanthemum.
It remains only for the tank (otherwise there is MTLB) chassis, make a tower, and figure out how to book the radar (reflectors from armor and waveguides and the radar under the armor?).
That is dofiga.

But there is a missile, there is a radar, there are instruments, and there is even an AZ / launcher.

[barbos]

The fact is that any dummy rockets have a noticeable fuel consumption in the acceleration section. He is small, but greedy. This is most noticeable in the difference in the sizes of space rocket stages. This is the area with the most light. Well, it is very clear who shot and from where. Therefore, smart heads decided to combine warm with oblong, and even in the last century, many tanks had the ability to fire missiles directly from the barrel. But then I wanted to eat a fish, to climb a Christmas tree as a star and pass for a decent citizen. Therefore, the guns remained guns, not launchers. And again, suddenly there is a war, but there are no missiles. There are still so many unexploded shells.
On the other hand, it is necessary to disperse a blank of 50 kg to a speed of 100 m / s (conditional figures) at least 250 kJ. Further, the main engine is turned on at the dugout and it flies to the intended target. If the blank has the functionality of aiming at a target, then it will definitely aim, aim or enter a certain sector. The main thing is to shoot in the right direction, the rest is a matter of technology.
Only for this all it will be necessary to completely rethink the whole concept of the tank - a rotating turret with a cannon and on wheels. This will already be a highly mobile rocket launcher, where the barrel serves only for the initial acceleration of the rocket and setting the direction of flight, but not for firing projectiles. Big surprises await here with the inertia of thinking (how is it so that the gun does not bang!) And the general unpreparedness of the industry. We have been able to rivet shells en masse since WWI. Although missiles have existed for many decades, it’s still bad with mass production, moreover, for everyone. Even across the ocean.

[Victor Leningradets]

All this was implemented (albeit partially) in the Sturmtiger gun. The warheads of the Smerch installations on a shortened main engine, fired from a mortar barrel, would be effective.
True, this has nothing to do with MBT. As for ATGMs, vertical launch from honeycomb cells for tank destroyers is more beneficial, or traditional launch from a 152-mm barrel for an infantry tank.

[Per se.]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

As for ATGMs, vertical launch from honeycomb cells for tank destroyers is more beneficial, or traditional launch from a 152-mm barrel for an infantry tank.

Here is IT-1.

For reference. The tank used a retractable installation of the 2K4 Dragon guided missile system with a loading mechanism, which contained 12 ZM7 guided missiles. Three more missiles were located in a non-mechanized ammunition rack. As an auxiliary weapon, the IT-1 was equipped with a 7,62 mm PKT machine gun with 2000 rounds of ammunition.

Now missiles have become more perfect, and it is not necessary to use a vertical launch, you can leave the principle from IT-1. By the way, the tank was in service for 3 years. "Traditional launch from the barrel", the fact of the matter is that it is the gun that gives a significant increase in the weight of the tank, especially 152 mm. A lighter 57 mm cannon in combination with a missile system will make the tank lighter, more compact, this will make it possible to strengthen the defense without the prohibitive weight of the vehicle.

[barbos]

Quote: Per se.

it is the gun that gives a significant increase in the weight of the tank,

As far as I understand, the gun itself: weight, dimensions, recoil, guidance mechanisms, barrel stabilization - this is the main source of headache for constructors and weight gain. A decently protruding cannon barrel greatly reduces the tank's maneuverability in dense urban areas or green areas. Yes, and you can’t wave them strongly in the horizontal plane. And sometimes you really need to get the villain over there high up.

and it is not necessary to use vertical launch

Not at all necessary, because shooting from greenery is likely, shelters, and you never know what can be on top at the time of the shot (clothing lines on the balcony).

A lighter 57 mm gun in combination with a missile system will make the tank lighter

Here in the comments they periodically ask (even demand) a land light version of the AK-725 on a caterpillar base. So even it will be easier than the current version.

[barbos]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

traditional launch from a 152 mm barrel, for an infantry tank

So well began to develop the idea and again for the old. Why does a tank need a big gun now? In the last century, when there were no missiles or when they began to appear, but looked rather weak against the background of shells, this would still be justified. Now not the most sophisticated and new ATGM has a tandem warhead, nullifying active armor and calling into question the need for BOPS. Armament with TBC has long been asking for more active use. And sometimes it is necessary for it to fly vertically (land in the trenches from above). In cases with sown in buildings horizontally. With the help of a gun of any caliber, such selectivity is extremely difficult to portray.
The situation with rockets in artillery is reminiscent of the state of affairs in the automotive industry, when manufacturers began to sculpt hybrids of all-clean electric cars. Trying to delay the end in your favorite ways. Where are these hybrids now?
The mortar or mortar version of missile launch allows you to level the negative factors of missiles: reduce fuel consumption at the acceleration stage, reduce the unmasking factor and not burn your own with exhaust at launch. With the current capabilities of targeting and target acquisition systems, it is enough to shoot into that steppe and tick away on your own business.

[RusGr]

Why build tanks, it's time to move on to a swarm of armored vehicles, autonomous-remote control, with a wide range of weapons. By type, starting with rifle fire, ending with self-propelled guns, mortar, howitzer barrels. And their protection is secondary. There should be machines in large quantities in order to reduce the cost.

[bk0010]

But the fact is that for this tank it was necessary to design a new turret with a rear niche, change the location of the ammo racks and change the gun loading mechanism. As a result, all this turned out to be so unbalanced that the frontal part of the tower had to be scalded with rectangular counterweights. In addition, the design of the turret ring was actually re-created, since the old one could not withstand shock loads.

Generally on the drum. The only question should be whether the tank needs a 152-mm gun or not, but it is possible to design from scratch.
If the question depended on me, then I would order a sample and see what happens. By the way, the high armor penetration of the 152-mm projectile will probably allow you to return to the rifled gun, which will significantly increase accuracy. At the same time, it would be possible to work out the issue of a projectile of increased power, which would allow destroying enemy tanks without fooling around with armor penetration (for some reason it seems to me that 10-15 kg of modern explosives will be enough for any Abrams). It would have turned out to be a single tank shell, but without the weaknesses of the existing single tank shells. And lay the possibility of working in the ACS mode, which is not afraid of counter-battery fire (except for anti-tank cluster ammunition).

[Mint Gingerbread]

It is not necessary to increase the caliber. It is necessary to develop new explosives, with greater damage, with less mass and volume.

[barbos]

Shaft, not just a shaft, but a shaft !!! Shells with standard explosives. And factories have been producing it for decades. And so it will be necessary to put the old ones somewhere, and the most difficult thing is to redesign the plants for a new explosive. Again, many are just on the subcortex of a fan of large caliber.

[Bogalex]

I would like to recommend to all apologists for the 152-mm tank gun, before discussing the advisability of its introduction, try to load with their handles into the tank (through the top turret hatch) a full b / c 45-kilogram shells.
And then, when we catch our breath, we'll sit down and talk.

[Devil13]

It is recommended to learn how to load arta, and that this is not always done through the hatch.
And on this experience to finalize the loading and placement of the bookmaker. For example, in a niche behind the tower, and not in a shahid mobile like t-64 and t-80

[Bogalex]

Oh really?
And b / c SAO and tanks are loaded the same way, right? Come on, buddy, tell me - where is the tank loading mechanism from the ground, like 2S19 or 2S3, for example. And is it even possible to put it on a combat vehicle designed for operations in direct contact with the enemy? I will listen with pleasure.

[DenVB]

Quote: Bogalex

try to load with your handles into the tank (through the upper turret hatch) a full b / c 45-kilogram shells.

An interesting note. Especially when you consider the absence of the notorious black loader from Abrams in our crews, over whom we love to laugh so much.

[Bogalex]

And this is generally a common problem that those who are entrusted by the Motherland with designing weapons think little about.
For example, before the calculations of the guns were 7-8 people. A lot of? Of course! However, there were no particular problems in the battery to allocate a certain number of people, for example, to organize the protection and defense of the area of ​​​​firing positions.
And now that we have left three people in the crews (like, cool - reducing the number of crews!), and at the same time we are placing guns and combat vehicles in so-called sparse combat formations, where will we get people from? Who will ensure security and how? What forces will be used to carry out engineering equipment of positions? How will we ensure round-the-clock duty?
And the question of loading a b / c into the tank, when the shells suddenly begin to weigh not 20, but 50 kg - from the same series.
This is because every year among the people who make decisions about the technical appearance of advanced weapons, apparently, there are fewer and fewer of those who loaded something with their own hands and saw military equipment live.

[Alf]

Quote: Bogalex

(through the top tower hatch)

Is it not fate to make a loading hatch on board?
For example, you can see the loading from the ground at Msta.

[Bogalex]

But to understand that a tank and a CAO are not the same thing is weak?

[DenVB]

Quote: Alf

Is it not fate to make a loading hatch on board?

What a loading hatch, this is yesterday. A robotic arm must be placed on a tank, with computer vision and artificial intelligence. So that he himself shifted the shells from the truck to the tank. And then he hides inside and works as a loader.

[Bogalex]

And then he hides inside and works as a loader.

As well as commander, gunner and mechanic. And what is not?

[DenVB]

Quote: Bogalex

As well as commander, gunner and mechanic. And what is not?

And who will pull the downed harp?

[Demon_is_ada]

Yes, and in 2c3 it’s not very joyful to shove ammunition from the ground
The mechanized loading of the cassette into the compartment is our FSE. On t14 it is quite feasible. Plus a huge time saver.

[Bogalex]

Everything would be fine if there was only one type of shells in the composition of the tank and the tanks, like in a computer toy, were reloaded by pressing the "R" key immediately after the last shell was used up.
But in real life, things just don't work out that way...

[Demon_is_ada]

In life, I don't think anyone bothers with this problem. Regularly, the 2s3m had 7 people in my time, in fact 5, two were loading from the ground. You correctly described the problem with the reduction of service staff above. Okay, the self-propelled gun is self-digging, but what about the towed one?
As for the unification of shells, there is a direction of combined cumulative fragmentation. With crowbars, I think the same is not a problem in the cassette of 10% of the houses, the rest are universal ...
Well these are my fantasies for the future

[Tavrik]

Something like a story from World War II. Then the Germans hoisted 150 mm turrets (in fact, the caliber of light cruisers) on their destroyers instead of the usual 120-130 mm guns for this type of ships. Well, like, power! As a result, they lost in rate of fire, ammunition, overloaded their noses (ships began to burrow more). It turned out to be the wrong decision.

[Devil13]

1. The introduction of projectiles with remote detonation, creating a directed field of fragments, is relevant for any caliber.

2. I’ll add that footage of work with direct fire of Acacia self-propelled guns and even something like MSTA are walking on the network with SVO.
And also, that, in fact, the assault on cities and fortified areas back in Berlin was carried out using 152mm direct fire, since such a projectile allows you to bury half of the building with luck, and not local points.

3. Conducting an analysis (working in pairs of tanks and vehicles with 30mm barrels while reloading a tank, working from extreme distances, working as artillery, working in an assault), we can say that the t-95 would be ideal in the current situation.
Especially considering that tanks are also being attacked with old KS shells... The new KS 152mm will make it possible to work from greater distances.

4. Based on the foregoing, you need:
-152mm + 30mm in a module or in a pair for easy bq placement.
With BC in a horizontal AZ according to the type of Leclerc and our prototypes. Perhaps with a cluster reload bk, and its 1 shell and charge each.
And yes. A decrease in BC is not very sad when tanks have 2-10 shells in their load so that the crew can survive now.


5. Without a crew, or with a crew in the stern of the tank, with the ability to enter / exit through the ramp, with the ability, if necessary, to evacuate several bedridden wounded.

So we take the T-15, reduce the BO and fasten the tower with 152mm, and not a remotely controlled module, but a classic.
In order to retrain the people less, and to accommodate the crew normally, and not compactly.

[barbos]

The gun as a heat engine is good in its capabilities. Reactive technology in terms of energy efficiency is not easy to chase with it. Only with all this, the gun is already outliving its capabilities. Over the centuries, everything that can be squeezed out of it. At the same time, jet technology has even greater opportunities for development. Therefore, it is more expedient not to fence huge guns, but to think about missile re-equipment of the tank.

[evgen1221]

OK. Launch the Isu-152 into a series, cheap, proven technology, add modern goodies and break through the defense forward. Simple and effective.

[Victor Leningradets]

Basically, that's how it is. The D-20 gun-howitzer, upgraded to a tank howitzer, is installed in the Akatsiya turret - a descendant of the ML-20 installed in the ISU-152. Only the swivel turret and large elevation angles allow it to effectively use weapons. A tank, reliably protected from portable infantry weapons, armed with a howitzer cannon should become the basis of infantry units.
Much more interesting is what will replace the MBT as a cruising tank.

[Alf]

Quote: evgen1221

OK. Launch the Isu-152 into a series, cheap, proven technology, add modern goodies and break through the defense forward. Simple and effective.

And at the same time put the IS-2 in a series for the base.

[iouris]

Is a tank needed? And, in general, now you need to win with what you have, and not engage in projects.

[shark507]

Quote: Baron Pardus

Learn materiel. The German 130mm gun has not only been tested, but also installed in the PANTHER and Challenger 2 tanks.
The French NEXTER 140mm gun is installed in the Leclerc tank and has been tested

There is only a little left - to take the T-62, stick a thicker water pipe or a pine log instead of a cannon (or rather an aspen log - so authentic), take a picture of all this and put it in the media as a T-34 NEXT tank with a 180-mm cannon which " has not only been tested but also established.
And that's it! The Germans and French, with their miserable 130-140 mm, are put to shame!
Although these sly bastards won't even change the water pipe stuck in the "Panther" - they'll paint it a different color and say that they now have 190 mm! And then they'll wrap it in several layers of electrical tape, take new photos and say that they have 203 mm.

[Georgy Sviridov_2]

152 mm are really interesting only for the use of tiao ...
And so the battles show that tanks calmly hit each other with a 125 mm gun ... But under the use of tiao, it is necessary to rewrite the doctrine, where it is written that in order to win on the battlefield, as well as to destroy vital infrastructure, Russia will apply to its enemy the whole range of forces and means, including WMD, from the very beginning of the conflict, leaving the enemy not even a chance not only to win, but also to resist.
As long as this does not exist, there is no point in all this, Russia has tens of thousands of tanks under caliber 125, it will be impossible to replace them in the coming years. And to build a hundred or two tanks for another weapon is a perversion of logistics ...

[Victor Leningradets]

As the current hostilities show, the 125-mm gun turned out to be useless for solving problems of direct infantry support, and oncoming tank battles were rare. Tanks perform the functions of assault vehicles that are unusual for them (very inefficiently) and act from ambushes as tank destroyers. All actions come down to jumping out of cover - a shot - a retreat.
In cities, "bricked" carnations turned out to be much more useful, although the 122-mm caliber turned out to be frankly weak against the Azovstal fortifications.

[Devil13]

Again. Tanks don't fight tanks. And with the infantry. Against infantry, the usual 125mm is not enough.

[Mustached Kok]

It seems to me that the issues of switching to the 152 mm caliber are being conducted only because they do not know how to pull the tanks out of the deadlock of goal-setting that has appeared.

On the one hand, stealthy and maneuverable anti-tank systems, grenades, rockets, bombs, etc. are now acting against tanks. The modern battlefield is incredibly saturated with anti-tank weapons and tanks can no longer play the role of an "armored fist" that breaks through the weak sections of the front and destroys the rear. After all, even having made such a breakthrough, in the rear now the tanks will meet serious resistance in the form of anti-tank systems and modern mines. For a long time there has been no such thing that, having entered the rear, the tank, in the worst case, will meet artillery that can try to transfer to them and try to destroy them.

BUT at the same time. A tank is still the only means in the ground forces that simultaneously possesses the qualities of mobility (modern tanks are quite fast and maneuverable while maintaining good cross-country ability), security (in the armed forces of almost all countries, there is no equipment more secure than a tank) and firepower (caliber, characteristics of a gun and the number of shells give unprecedented firepower, against the background of any other equipment that works at the forefront of the "front"). Any other means in CB cannot boast of all these parameters at the same time.

Conclusion - the tanks were in stagnation. They can no longer be guaranteed to fulfill the same role of the main shock fist as before. But even without them, the army will collapse. Since there is no replacement for them yet.

And I thought - what if you can increase the survivability and efficiency of a tank by dramatically and qualitatively increasing the information awareness of a group of tanks in general, and the crews of individual tanks in particular. Now there is a trend to create drones for tanks. But what if we go further!?

What if the 4th crew member is returned to the tank crew, but it will not be the loader, but the "observer" (for simplicity, we will continue to call him "observer"). A separate crew member specially engaged in observing the environment, target designation, reconnaissance and target search. Let's get a system in which the observer is the eyes and ears of the tank, the shooter is the main fist of the tank, the mechanic is the driver of the tank, and the commander is the brain of the tank.

It is the operator who will indicate the detected dangers that are not included in the line of sight of the commander, shooter and driver.

To put it even simpler, the operator is a member of the tank crew responsible for all-round observation of the situation NOT in the line of sight of other members of the tank crew. The operator must monitor the terrain FOR terrain folds, obstacles and observe dangerous directions from angles not available to other crew members. At the same time, with the ability to transfer direct data / picture to the commander, gunner and driver, at the request of a crew member or the order of the commander.

[Devil13]

This is necessary in addition to any BM. But it does not cancel the questions of 152mm and the increase in destructive power

[Konnick]

Quote: Tavrik

Something like a story from World War II. Then the Germans hoisted 150 mm turrets (in fact, the caliber of light cruisers) on their destroyers instead of the usual 120-130 mm guns for this type of ships. Well, like, power! As a result, they lost in rate of fire, ammunition, overloaded their noses (ships began to burrow more). It turned out to be the wrong decision.

Finally, a sensible comment. The development of the APS will lead to the fact that a 152 mm and even 125 mm shell will be destroyed as it approaches an enemy tank. But, for example, 57 mm shells from a rapid-fire automatic cannon will blow all the crap off the turret and give the green light to ATGMs.
I'll add that shooting 152 mm shells is cool, but you still have to hit, and preferably on the first try. You can fire a couple dozen 57 mm shells from an automatic rapid-fire cannon, and that will be enough to blind or immobilize a tank in the time of one shot from the "Tsar Cannon", which you still don't know whether you'll hit or not.

[Lepsik]

It is felt that the sofa analyst wrote that he had never fired from a tank. So much nonsense.

[Tank destroyerSU-100]

Quote: Victor Sergeev

It is estimated that the absence of a turret only increases the weight, since the cabin is large in width, plus the gun has meager horizontal aiming angles.

Who counted? Tell me how much heavier the ISU-152 was than the IS-2, give the weight layout.

[Novic2U]

Armata is a chassis for modules, in particular for the 152 caliber, a module needs to be designed. At the same time, the Armata base, as opposed to the object 292 and T-72, T-90, allows for the installation of a 152 caliber gun and loading mechanism without any counterweights, etc.

[Vadim Topal Pasha]

The author writes that tanks do not fight tanks, and this was clear back in 1973.

I agree with everything except the date. I read the history of the creation of IS tanks. And even then, in 1942, there was a scolding among specialists, and diverting tanks to fight tanks was recognized as a mistake worthy of punishment.

This is a purely philistine idea that the tanks almost duel. Ideally, tanks should destroy defenseless rear areas. And the fact that they sometimes have to fight with their own kind is accidental and / or forced.

[Warlord]

Alas, the reality is that all the rules can be safely flushed down the toilet. If you want to win, then you will have to use more sophisticated and non-standard methods. The Germans lost the war because their plans turned out to be formulaic by 1943.
Supposedly tanks do not fight tanks, but in the end, 60% of the 5th Tank Army lost in the Battle of Kursk. Rotmistrov was ready to be shot if no one stood up for him. We cannot repeat the mistakes of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, who underestimated the enemy in 1941-1942. The T-34 and KV really dominated until 1942, but then they became equal in quality. And by 1943, they fell far behind. Here history suggests itself, the T-90 is a good tank. However, the 125 mm armament is clearly outdated, although it is a completely working caliber. Moreover, it was developed back in the 70s. I know I wrote a lot, but who will answer if tanks suddenly start losing? Until the fried rooster pecks in one place, no one will start moving.

[Vadim Topal Pasha]

What specific target on the battlefield is not hit by the 125mm caliber and requires a quick transition to 152mm?

[the same doctor]

We need large-caliber short-barreled howitzers on a tank chassis, which, thanks to tank protection, will be able to fire in close proximity to the enemy. And tanks do not need an excessive caliber. Not yet needed.

[GRAFIN_32]

Theme for philosophers. The Battle of Kursk took place like the Throw to the English Channel. If we talk about tank HE shells, then the Soviet school is the best. As they say, "a tank is a tractor with a gun." Artillery makes itself felt and this is the most important thing. Talk about 152/155mm on tanks is absolutely fruitless for their supporters. Times are not right. Even in the USSR they felt it. Both the military and the designer. The tank turns into the same tractor. You can not argue. If we talk about shells, then 125mm is still developing, I agree about its further modernization opportunities. The main thing is not to be led by the Americans and the Germans. Their wars (NATO) were not like ours. Versatility is good, but you have to do it with experience. We have our own. Therefore, our shells are better. It’s better to sit on the floor and not be afraid if they shoot at you from Abrams with a projectile worth an apartment. We do not need such a school. Here is our 125mm bad business. He has great potential.
The idea of ​​guns does not cause anything. I don't even want to dream about what it will be like in the future. It will not happen. If you want to discuss the penetration and capabilities of guns, now there are guns of 90 mm caliber that will pierce a bare T-72 with kinetics in the upper glacis. Why then 152/155 mm? The nonsense of dreamers who like to count the stars on the balcony at night while smoking a cigarette. Honestly, this topic is very debatable and no one will be able to make a decision just like that. Time will decide everything for you, for us and for the tanks. But I bet on time. I trust it more than experts.
Outcome. 125mm shells have not yet matured, mature and mature. 152/155mm guns on a tank of stupidity, they will never be installed. There are terribly more minuses than pluses, and the pluses themselves are vague.

[agond]

During the Second World War, the Germans tried to install single-charge cannons on fighters, several barrels per wing, which would be enough for one attack on a bomber, and on a special tank designed to hit an important target in the city, it is technically not difficult to install a single-charge cannon or a howitzer of increased caliber, with the tactics of driving up, firing, hitting the target, driving away to reload, if there is no need to conduct continuous fire, then this is the most optimal solution.

[Warlord]

Well, I think that the caliber of 152 mm for the city is still small. Even 152 mm and 240 mm and 203 mm can hardly cope. Against small bunker structures, it is still possible and necessary. But I think Pinocchio Tos has too vulnerable BC in a package of 24 shells. It would be more logical to make a self-propelled gun under it with a 220 mm mortar for firing with thermobaric shells. The British used in 1944 a tank based on Churchill to blow up bunkers. And the second tank with a flamethrower burned the destroyed bunkers (the Germans fled immediately if they had time). Then the caliber was 290 mm, although the firing range was only 150-180 meters and manual loading. But now it's the 21st century, and I doubt that there will be no ways to solve problems. Moreover, 1 successful accurate shot is much better than 24 shells fired into milk. Moreover, the self-propelled guns will have a rotating cabin, lightweight like the M18 Hellket, but with a completely closed top. And it can also fire high-explosive fragmentation, which will make the Abrams tank terribly uncomfortable in the city. In addition, you can equip the good old Varna fire mixture with fire cakes, and add a flamethrower to clear hatches underground. You run a hose through the hole from the hatch and fire the mixture.

[Suslik_2]

When reading the article, I remembered the storm-tiger tank with the mania of gigantism.

We are today in the midst of a major war where new technologies and concepts are being tested. Today shows that expensive high-tech long-range mobile and protected howitzers with conventional and guided weapons and received data on the target in real time, being at an inaccessible distance and protected from UAVs due to mobility, is a clear further way for the development of large-caliber artillery. And the tanks clearly showed that they need a barrel for firing at armored targets in direct line of sight and for firing guided weapons out of sight of the enemy, because the torn off and lying towers in recent months seem to hint that a tank, unlike artillery, should specialize in its preservation on the battlefield with infantry support due to mobility, armor, KAZ, the inaccessibility of enemy missiles and shells and the minimum price as a consumable. Those. the paths of heavy artillery / large-caliber tanks and MBT continued their historical divergence into different niches.

[Timur_kz]

No, I think they will settle on an intermediate option - 130 mm or 135 mm.

[TeopeTuK]

Artillery shoots 152, why shouldn’t tank 152 shoot, and object 292 is a good tank, well, very t-14, especially the turret on it. Only 292 is fully assembled with us and t-14 German engines, etc.

[Predometrix]

There is always time to put a bigger gun. You need to develop shells.

[Vlad Gor]

What prevents you from installing a 152 mm gun on a tank?

[storm]

In this situation, tanks increasingly, although not always, began to play the role of a steel “sledgehammer”, quite typical for themselves, knocking out enemy manpower hidden in trenches, buildings and structures.

To increase the power of the charge, there are not many options, you need to increase either the length of the sleeve or the caliber.
If the charge length for a tank gun has practically reached its maximum, then with an increase in the caliber of guns, European tank design bureaus are actively working.
An armata with a 152 mm gun would make it possible to obtain an increase in firepower not by 20% compared to the T-90, but at times.
Otherwise, what is the point of purchasing a new T-14 tank at twice the price of a T-90 if this tank does not provide a twofold increase in firepower and protection.

[Georgy Sviridov_2]

Well, once in a while for land mines, a 152mm shell is needed, it will be much more powerful than 125mm. And crowbars, for crowbars, lengthening is needed, these are questions for the tower and the machine gun, and not for the caliber ...

[David1993]

Why is no one considering the option of installing a 152 mm low-ballistic rifled gun on a tank? To do this, you only need to replace the barrel and basket
And to penetrate armored vehicles there are ATGMs