Challenger 3 tank: briefly about the British transition to a smoothbore gun

45
Challenger 3 tank: briefly about the British transition to a smoothbore gun

It is no longer a secret that the British army finally decided to modernize its aging tanks Challenger 2, with the goal of extending their service life until at least the 2040s. The budget for this project is approximately a billion dollars, and the scale of improvements even became the reason for giving the post-operation machines a new name, “Challenger 3.”

According to plans, the tanks will receive a completely new turret and electronics, modular armor and active protection, as well as major changes to the suspension and power plant. But perhaps one of the most significant innovations is the replacement of the rifled gun with the smoothbore L55A1 from Leopard 2.



Let's say a word about the rifled gun


Generally speaking, the weapons of Challenger 2 seem very exotic in modern times and, to some extent, even smack of archaic. After all, a third-generation tank with a rifled gun is a rare combination against the backdrop of the total dominance of smooth-bore artillery in world tank building.

It’s hard to disagree here: “rifling” completely went out of fashion many years ago. However, it cannot be said that the gun of a British tank is completely incapable of anything. According to its characteristics, it suited the military quite well, and even now it has not completely lost its relevance.

Let us remember that we are talking about a 120-mm L30A1 gun with a barrel length of 55 calibers, developed in the 80s of the last century. In fact, this is the eighth and most radical modification of the L11 artillery system, which was installed on the Chieftains and then on the Challengers 1.

The product, of course, is specific, which is noticeable in the separate-cap loading scheme with a three-component shot, consisting of a separate projectile, propellant charge and ignition tube. And its ammunition is traditionally English, consisting of sub-caliber, armor-piercing high-explosive and smoke shells.

Challenger 2 ammunition from left to right: L27A1 sub-caliber projectile, Smoke WP smoke projectile, HESH armor-piercing high-explosive projectile
Challenger 2 ammunition from left to right: L27A1 sub-caliber projectile, Smoke WP smoke projectile, HESH armor-piercing high-explosive projectile

Otherwise, despite its features, the gun is extremely accurate when firing at long distances, which is inherent in all rifled guns. With a lifespan of 400 rounds on a full charge, which is large for this cohort, the old L11, for example, could boast only 120 rounds before significant barrel wear began. But that's not the main point.

The main advantage of the L30A1 is its anti-tank capabilities, which were not much different from those of smooth-bore guns in the 90s and 2000s. In this case, engineers from Foggy Albion did their best, squeezing the maximum out of the gun due to the new technology of its manufacture, which included chrome plating of the inner surface of the chamber and barrel in combination with its autofrettage (creation of residual stresses).

As a result, it was possible to achieve both the aforementioned long service life of the gun and to increase the maximum pressure in the barrel bore to 600 MPa or more using high-energy propellant charges.

Fragment of a report on the development status of the L27A1 projectile (CHARM 3). Indicates that the requirements for armor penetration of 700 mm of steel armor are exceeded
Fragment of a report on the development status of the L27A1 projectile (CHARM 3). Indicates that the requirements for armor penetration of 700 mm of steel armor are exceeded

All this made it possible to create powerful uranium finned L27A1 sub-caliber projectiles with armor penetration of about 700 millimeters of medium-hard steel armor. This was more than enough to destroy any Soviet-type tanks, including the most armored T-72B and T-80U with Kontakt-5 dynamic protection.

In principle, even today the gun can hardly be called completely outdated. She can still show her strengths on the battlefield. Although it could have shown more if it had high-explosive fragmentation or specialized anti-personnel shells in its ammunition. But these are problems for the military and manufacturers - the rifling and design do not interfere with this.

Reasons for replacing with a smoothbore


Indeed, the L30A1 is not yet a completely decrepit old lady, but what are the reasons for replacing it with a smoothbore gun? Often, as an answer to this question, a very widespread opinion is given that the British are very concerned about the lack of shell unification of their tank with its NATO “brothers” in terms of difficulties in supplying ammunition.

It is pointless to deny this fact, since Challenger 2 with its cannon looks like a black sheep compared to the vast majority of combat vehicles of a similar class, armed with smooth-bore guns. This circumstance negatively affects the interoperability of NATO troops and, in theory, could affect the combat effectiveness of the British army in large-scale and local military operations.

However, if the problems of the L30A1 concerned only this aspect, then the highest military officials in Great Britain would hardly have decided to seriously modernize their tanks. There are actually two more reasons besides this one.

Challenger 3 prototype with new turret and German L55A1 smoothbore gun
Challenger 3 prototype with new turret and German L55A1 smoothbore gun

The first is the production of standard ammunition. The British practically lost it due to the lack of appropriate military orders, the systematic reduction in funding for the military industry and the process of its privatization.

For example, the last batch of L27A1 sub-calibers was produced in 2001, and as of 2006, their production lines were completely closed. Also, the production of the English calling card - armor-piercing high-explosive shells - has long ceased to exist in the country. They are now made in small batches by a Belgian company far outside the UK.

In other words, the British actually live mostly on stocks. You can’t fight much with them, as they say. And in peacetime, ammunition tends to go to waste due to the expiration date. However, the restoration of their production, and even more so the development of new ones, is fraught with extremely high costs, which, in principle, cannot be significantly reduced due to mass production.

This requires a large and constant demand for products. But it is not and will not be, since the only consumers of specific shells for the 120-mm rifled gun are the UK tank fleet, limited to a couple of hundred Challenger 2s, as well as Oman, which has only 38 tanks of this type.

In the current situation, equipping the Challenger 2 with a smoothbore 120-mm cannon is the only way through which the UK can gain access to cheap and advanced shells by purchasing them from Germany or the USA.


The second and most important reason for switching to a new gun is related to increasing the firepower of the tank due to the possibility of using the most modern sub-caliber shells.

Of course, L27A1 is still relevant today - and will be relevant in the near future. But in the future, the old Challenger 2 cannon will no longer be able to cover all the needs in the fight against armor, even if the British decide to produce ammunition.

This is due to the fact that in a rifled barrel it is physically impossible to provide the same high maximum pressure when firing as in a smooth one. The L30A1’s is significantly lower than that of the old German 120-mm L44 cannon and its counterpart on the Abrams tank, with values ​​exceeding 700 MPa.

Based on this, a significant increase in the initial velocities of projectiles or their maintenance with increasing length and mass of the core is greatly limited. Moreover, the rifling also means a larger friction area and a heavier driving device for guiding the projectile in the barrel and sealing off the powder gases.

So it is impossible to create a projectile that would be similar in penetration to modern American and German models. But after installation, the guns can be bought either from the same Germans or from the Americans.

In addition, a smoothbore gun will lead to an expansion of the tank's anti-personnel functionality, which, as we noted earlier, was severely limited. And this, it must be said, is a weighty argument, since the Challenger 2’s only high-explosive armor-piercing projectile containing explosives is not suitable for these purposes.

Its effectiveness against buildings and fortifications seriously lags behind new Western developments, and against openly located manpower it is completely comparable to 85-mm high-explosive fragmentation grenades. Based on this, equipping the vehicle with cumulative fragmentation and multi-purpose programmable projectiles of the DM11 type will multiply its combat capabilities.

In general, the choice of new ammunition for the updated Challenger is large and depends only on the compliance of the manufacturing country. But, according to some sources, the British are seriously looking at the most promising types of projectiles, including the latest overseas uranium “crowbars” M829A4.

Conclusions


Indeed, the prospects that a smooth-bore gun paints are very tempting, and the British simply have no other choice in preserving the combat effectiveness of Challenger 2. Therefore, adding it to the list of mandatory tank upgrades as part of modernization looks like a completely justified decision.

Of course, a lot of money will be spent on this from the planned budget, since due to the installation of the gun it was necessary to install a completely new turret, since in the old one it is simply impossible to organize a place for storing 120-mm unitary rounds. But the benefits of the events are obvious.

It should be taken into account that the new weapons will also be supplemented by a modern fire control system, including third-generation thermal imagers, an automatic target tracking system, the integration of a “digital battle space” and other innovations that significantly increase the tank’s capabilities on the battlefield. In short, the Challenger will be fully packed.
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -10
    18 March 2024 04: 55
    Electronic fire control systems in the West are good, of course, but they get “shch” from the Russians, and the Challengers have already been pulled back from the outskirts, they say. and the abrams are burning - a sight for sore eyes. for a “smooth” gun: you can launch missiles from it, it’s less accurate (not critically), but more functional.
    1. +4
      18 March 2024 05: 16
      Quote: Aerodrome
      on a “smooth” cannon: so you can launch missiles from it,

      You can use a rifled one too... M551 for example, and they developed the Bastion/Sheksna for our T-55.
      1. 0
        18 March 2024 05: 22
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Quote: Aerodrome
        on a “smooth” cannon: so you can launch missiles from it,

        You can use a rifled one too... M551 for example, and they developed the Bastion/Sheksna for our T-55.

        I agree, but the smooth one does not have “groove wear”.
        1. +2
          18 March 2024 05: 40
          I agree, but the smooth one does not have “groove wear”.

          It is pointless to dispute the greater wear of a rifled barrel, but even 400 shots on a full charge is a considerable number. Considering that during its combat operation the tank fires the same armor-piercing high-explosive shells, which do not use a full charge. The total resource can be 1000+ shots.
    2. +3
      18 March 2024 05: 22
      for a “smooth” gun: you can launch missiles from it, it’s less accurate (not critically), but more functional.

      A rifled gun has no fundamental restrictions on the range of projectiles. Neither cumulative, nor offs, nor missiles. T-55M and BMP-3 are the last to fire. wink
      1. +3
        18 March 2024 09: 01
        Quote: Eduard Perov
        A rifled gun has no fundamental restrictions on the range of projectiles. Neither by cumulative

        As far as I remember, KS really doesn't like rotation. request
        1. +5
          18 March 2024 17: 23
          As far as I remember, KS really doesn't like rotation.

          That’s why they are made non-rotating for a rifled barrel.
    3. 0
      18 March 2024 22: 18
      How to implement remote detonation on smooth-bore guns?
      Laser? Crude technology and noise sensitive, for now. Set a timer? The spread is large.
      The most mature technology is to count revolutions. And it only comes with a rifled barrel
      1. 0
        April 16 2024 22: 43
        On small-caliber guns it was implemented using projectile rotation; there is a unit of measurement in meters/revolution. Since on smoothbore guns there is no rotation at the muzzle of the barrel, it is probably possible to create a certain constant cadence of rotations using the fins and use the projectile precisely. Although we need to see how it works for DM11 and its analogues.
  2. -1
    18 March 2024 05: 14
    The English can sing whatever they want about armor penetration. 625 mm.
    https://topwar.ru/213418-nemnogo-o-peredache-uranovyh-snarjadov-ukraine.html?ysclid=ltwb1tswf9101379053

    But there is another disadvantage of separate cap loading - the length of the projectile is limited by the front end of the cap. This is of course not a limitation of AZ, but nevertheless.
    1. +4
      18 March 2024 05: 19
      The English can sing whatever they want about armor penetration. 625 mm.

      They can, and in that article I gave the average value in the spread of numbers. But then documents came out about the shell. At least this is at least some fact recorded on paper.
  3. +1
    18 March 2024 05: 39
    The author may have missed another significant reason. Low rate of fire from a standard gun with a cap shot (three-component shot).
  4. +1
    18 March 2024 05: 51
    An armor-piercing high-explosive projectile is essentially the same incomprehensible English tradition as the absence of a faucet in English washbasins. It does not work on shielded and spaced armor. The rifling limits the initial velocity of a cumulative projectile to a greater extent than in a smooth barrel, and this in turn affects such characteristics as the range of a direct shot, and if you solve the problem in French, then the cost of the shot.
    1. -1
      18 March 2024 18: 55
      And what does the rifling have to do with the range of a direct cumulative shot, God forgive me??? hi
      1. 0
        18 March 2024 19: 30
        Quote: Jager
        forgive me lord

        Yes, that's it for you, contact me using a simple -mark 1, and so be it - I forgive you!
        1.The density of the cumulative jet depends on the speed of rotation of the projectile
        2. The higher the initial speed of the projectile, the higher its rotation speed, the longer the direct shot range, but due to the lower density of the cumulative jet, the lower armor penetration
        3. The lower the initial velocity of the projectile, the lower the rotation speed and the higher the density of the cumulative jet and, accordingly, the higher the armor penetration, but the shorter the direct shot range
        4. A direct shot is a shot in which the flight path of the projectile does not rise above the aiming line above the target along its entire length.
        1. -1
          April 28 2024 08: 56
          Monsieur, you should at least look at the cross-sectional image of a cumulative projectile and draw conclusions. Judging by what you have written, you are not even friendly with elementary physics.
          From the opus about the dependence of “projectile speed on rotation” I gasped a lot.
    2. 0
      18 March 2024 20: 16
      Moreover, the flight speed of a CUMULATIVE B projectile to penetrate armor?
  5. -6
    18 March 2024 06: 10
    I wonder what kind of armor the roof of the same turret or engine compartment will have? Can they withstand being hit by 1-6 charges from an RPG-7 at a time? What kind of electronic warfare equipment will the tank have? Will it have a “dovecote”? If all this is missing, then an armored coffin is described that will live on the LBS for no more than an hour. And here everything is about a cannon, about a cannon. Does a coffin on seven wheels need a cannon? The concept of protecting tanks has changed a lot in the last 2 years.
    1. +3
      18 March 2024 06: 39
      Quote: Yuri L
      I wonder what kind of armor the roof of the same tower or engine compartment will have?
      Classic. Metal grid wink
  6. +1
    18 March 2024 07: 29
    Your own path of development is certainly not bad, but still war dictates its own rules, the most optimal and worked out by action. There's no escape here
  7. -4
    18 March 2024 09: 14
    It will be strange if the British finally develop their miracle weapon and surpass our armata in production.
    1. -1
      18 March 2024 10: 09
      As with the issue of the 5th generation fighter, there is no mass production... Leo2A6 and newer have taken over exports and it is very difficult to fight them. Due to the developed industry of Germany
      1. +2
        18 March 2024 16: 32
        Once upon a time we had a developed industry.
  8. -2
    18 March 2024 10: 08
    Considering the realities of the Northern Military District... A rifled gun would be more useful for tanks. 2mm rifled weapons were also considered as an alternative to our 46a122. BOPS (tank) is not the most used ammunition today, and the accuracy and power of HE shells from a rifled barrel is higher. And for assault operations - HE is the main projectile for a tank.
    1. +2
      18 March 2024 21: 30
      Quote: Zaurbek
      2mm rifled weapons were also considered as an alternative to our 46a122.

      Not as an “alternative”, but as a complement! And not 2A46, but the “prototype” 2A46! In general, a lot of attention was paid to the creation of rifled 130-mm tank guns! By the way, on the basis of rifled 130-mm tank guns, smooth-bore 130-mm and 140-mm tank guns were created! However, the idea that you mentioned was generally not bad! This is a smooth-bore 125-mm tank gun D-81 and its “twin” - a rifled 122-mm gun D-83! The idea was to have practically the same gun, but with different interchangeable barrels!
      1. +1
        19 March 2024 08: 59
        What I mean is that the tank’s gun, as an anti-tank weapon, has faded into the 2nd-3rd-4th level. And, plus, the calibers of tank guns have grown since the Second World War. The power of guns with rifled barrels (the English L7 showed this) is quite enough to defeat a modern MBT. And increasing the caliber to 130mm and higher will not be a problem at all..... The growth and their accuracy will be much higher than the power of HE ammunition.
        1. +1
          19 March 2024 09: 11
          I agree! That’s why I “approve” the concept of the “D-81/83 complex”! Is it bad to have a “2 in 1” gun? Considering that in “modern” warfare tanks “replace” self-propelled guns!
  9. -5
    18 March 2024 11: 53
    - “The budget for this project is approximately a billion dollars.”
    With this money you can buy one and a half hundred new Leo 2A6. And they say that our budgets are being cut!
  10. 0
    18 March 2024 19: 02
    The British had their own way of tank building. Not entirely clear and logical for those not familiar with the nuances of English statutes and industry.
    Unfortunately (no), the British practically destroyed their own tank building. The same approach worked for them as it does for us in many industries - there is enough stock, and we will buy the rest. As a result, the stock ran out and there was no one. But whether the rest will be sold is another question. We can only hope for the “respected partner”.
    But Uncle Sam firmly and tolerantly holds old England by the bells. laughing
    Sagging under the Germans will finally put an end to the already lame small British tank forces. And in the literal sense, “small” - 150 active vehicles, that’s enough for a couple of weeks in a medium-intensity conflict. And this is generally ALL armored vehicles of the arrogant Saxons.
  11. 0
    18 March 2024 19: 05
    The reason is obvious - who needs a tank with purely specific guns and shells?
  12. +1
    18 March 2024 21: 39
    This is due to the fact that in a rifled barrel it is physically impossible to provide the same high maximum pressure when firing as in a smooth one. The L30A1’s is significantly lower than that of the old German 120-mm L44 cannon and its counterpart on the Abrams tank, with values ​​exceeding 700 MPa.
    Based on this, a significant increase in the initial velocities of projectiles or their maintenance with increasing length and mass of the core is greatly limited. Moreover, rifling also means a larger friction area and a heavier driving device for guiding the projectile in the barrel and sealing off the powder gases.
    So it is impossible to create a projectile that would be similar in penetration to modern American and German models.

    With the permission of the author, I will try to present a slightly different view.
    In principle, there are no problems in ensuring in a rifled barrel a maximum pressure similar in magnitude to a smooth one when firing. The only question is the permissible thickness of the breech walls.
    The main difference between rifled and smoothbore guns is the higher rate of growth of the pressure curve at the early stage of the shot, caused by two main factors:
    1. lack of breakthrough of powder gases in a rifled barrel compared to a smooth-walled one;
    2. a lower acceleration rate of the projectile in a rifled barrel and, consequently, a slower increase in the volume of the belt space in which the combustion products of the propellant charge perform work.
    But these same factors also determine the higher efficiency of the rifled barrel, and, consequently, the lower amount of energy of the powder gases (and therefore the mass of the propellant charge) necessary to give the projectile an initial speed similar to that in a smoothbore gun.
    But the critical disadvantages of a rifled gun compared to a smoothbore one, in my opinion, are the following:
    1. (already voiced in the comments) The negative impact of axial rotation on the effectiveness of cumulative ammunition. Yes, the creation of non-rotating projectiles by introducing rotating driving belts into its design (as on the domestic "Krasnopol", for example) does not pose a significant problem, but it does not completely solve the problem, since it only slows down the rotation, albeit significantly, but does not eliminate it altogether. In addition, this is still a technology justified on an expensive guided projectile, and not on a massive cumulative or armor-piercing one. However, the British still do not have cumulative shells, so it seems to me that the main reason is not this, but the one outlined below.
    2. To achieve the greatest efficiency, the sub-caliber “crowbar” must approach the obstacle being pierced in a straight line, with minimal fluctuations in pitch and yaw angles. And this can only be achieved with a smooth barrel and is absolutely impossible with a rifled one. The latter inevitably imparts to the projectile precessional vibrations of the warhead (which have a very negative effect on the strength of the thin active part of the BOPS both in flight and in contact with the armor), constant deviation from normal movement caused by derivation, and a torque that contributes to the occurrence of destructive stresses in the body of the ammunition when its nose part suddenly stops at the moment of impact with an obstacle. In other words, a rifled gun is not able to provide the projectile with linear motion when approaching the target, and the greater the length and the smaller the diameter of the active part of the BOPS, the more it is not able to do so. And this is precisely the trend that has been observed in recent years. This means that the difference in the armor penetration of rifled and smooth-bore guns is becoming more and more noticeable towards the latter.
    1. 0
      18 March 2024 22: 09
      Yes. Clearly explained, thank you. All that remains is to explain why in modern warfare a tank generally needs a cumulative projectile and BOPS.

      Truly, the generals are preparing for the soldiers who have passed by... Even if they poke their noses at the marching ones.
      1. +1
        18 March 2024 22: 18
        When you stick your generals’ noses into the ongoing war, you forget that for the future conflict, for which Challenger 3 is actually being created, it will be the same one that has passed.
        Are you ready to convincingly justify that in an armed conflict of the future, BOPS, cumulative projectiles or ammunition created on their technical basis will definitely not be needed?
        1. 0
          18 March 2024 22: 36
          Tanks don't fight tanks. This is already an axiom. There are much simpler methods to neutralize armored vehicles than to drive the same vehicle weighing 60+ tons under it. All the wars of the past 70 years only confirm this. Including the current one. And those episodic excesses where armored vehicles ACCIDENTALLY collide nose to nose, everything is decided not by penetration but by the first hit. Because a 25/30/125 mm high explosive from cannons and autocannons demolishes all attached equipment, jams the gun, tears off the tracks, concusses the crew and turns ANY tank into a “zombie” from which you urgently need to escape
          1. +2
            18 March 2024 22: 37
            It's nice to deal with a theorist. hi
    2. +1
      18 March 2024 23: 57
      1. lack of breakthrough of powder gases in a rifled barrel compared to a smooth-walled one;
      2. a lower acceleration rate of the projectile in a rifled barrel and, consequently, a slower increase in the volume of the belt space in which the combustion products of the propellant charge perform work.
      But these same factors also determine the higher efficiency of the rifled barrel

      Unfortunately, these factors also determine the low service life of the rifled barrel with corresponding expensive measures that complicate its production technology. And the higher the charge energy, the worse and worse it gets. Just as they complicate the production of projectiles that are harmful due to rotation - cumulative and sub-caliber. They also impose a limit on the maximum pressure that the projectile’s driving device can withstand. They supplement it with a parasitic mass and spend part of the energy of the gunpowder to overcome friction in the barrel. For sub-caliber projectiles, all these indicators are extremely critical.

      1. (already voiced in the comments) The negative impact of axial rotation on the effectiveness of cumulative ammunition. Yes, the creation of non-rotating projectiles by introducing rotating driving belts into its design (as on the domestic "Krasnopol", for example) does not pose a significant problem, but it does not completely solve the problem, since it only slows down the rotation, albeit significantly, but does not eliminate it altogether.

      Rotation at speeds up to 1000-1500 rpm does not affect the penetration of the cumulative jet. (Physics of explosion, volume 2, page 313, issue 2002). Rotating belts are quite capable of providing this (or close to it) indicator. Another thing is that there are more hassles with them in terms of production and other nuances.

      To achieve the greatest efficiency, the sub-caliber "crowbar" must approach the obstacle being pierced in a straight line, with minimal fluctuations in pitch and yaw angles. And this can only be achieved with a smooth barrel and is absolutely impossible with a rifled one.

      Well, “crowbars” even in rifled guns have not been stabilized by rotation for a long time - since the length of the core exceeded 5-7 of its diameters. But a slight rotation of the projectile is even useful, since an important factor limiting the straightness of the projectile’s movement is the moment of separation of the driving device from the active part. For example, the first OBPS models for our 2A46 (before Nadfil, I think I can lie) were with an expanding device, which was separated due to rotation (holes in the walls). When pressure devices were introduced, which were separated due to air resistance, the accuracy of hits dropped.

      constant deviation from normal movement caused by derivation, and a moment of rotation that contributes to the occurrence of destructive stresses in the body of the ammunition when its nose part suddenly stops at the moment of impact with an obstacle.

      Is there any data indicating the scale of derivation of the rotating belt (low rotation speed) OBPS, taking into account flight speeds of more than 1500 meters per second? I think the deviation there is minimal. The influence of rotation on the destruction of plastic cores upon contact with armor is also minimal.
      1. 0
        19 March 2024 00: 13
        Thanks for the clarifications. I will not undertake to argue with most of the statements within the framework of the commentary to the article.
        Rotating belts are quite capable of providing this (or close to it) indicator.

        In Krasnopol this figure is about 10 revolutions per second, so you are right.
        They supplement it with a parasitic mass

        Well, here, it seems to me, you are going a little overboard. The parasitic mass of the driving device (including the rotating one) of the projectile for a rifled gun is negligibly small in itself, and is absolutely insignificant compared to the parasitic mass of the empennage of shells for smooth-bore guns.
        1. 0
          19 March 2024 00: 56
          Thanks for the clarifications. I will not undertake to argue with most of the statements within the framework of the commentary to the article.

          Thank you for your comments too!

          The parasitic mass of the driving device (including the rotating one) of the projectile to the rifled gun itself is negligibly small

          The very mass of the driving device of a sub-caliber projectile is not negligible - for domestic ammunition it reaches almost half the mass of the entire active part of the projectile. For example, in the legendary "Vant" the active part weighs 4.85 kg without a control device, and the driving device weighs 2.2 kg.

          and it is absolutely insignificant compared to the parasitic mass of the tail of shells for smooth-bore guns.

          Whether for rifled guns or smooth-bore guns, the empennage of a sub-caliber projectile is an obligatory part. Another thing is that in addition to all this, the leading device of the projectile for “rifling” will weigh more due to parts of the structure that prevent the transmission of rotation. In conditions when they are trying in every possible way to reduce the mass of the explosive by at least half a kilo using all sorts of composites and other things, even an extra 5-10% of the mass is already significant.
          1. -1
            19 March 2024 01: 31
            The mass of the driving device of the sub-caliber projectile itself is not negligible...

            Sorry, but when you initially wrote about the parasitic mass of the driving device (belt) of rifled gun projectiles, you wrote about the characteristics of the “gun-projectile” system in general, and not specifically about the use of BPS in them.
            And if we talk in general about the difference in the influence of the mass of the driving devices of rifled and smooth-bore guns, then:
            - for the BPS, I agree with you, although in my opinion the difference in the mass of the rotating copper belt and the driving device of a rifled gun projectile versus the mass of only the driving device of a smoothbore gun projectile is not a percentage, but a tenth, if not a hundredth part. However, I could be wrong;
            - but for a cumulative and high-explosive fragmentation projectile, the mass of the copper belt of the projectiles, stabilized by rotation, with the mass of the system of opening blades of similar projectiles, stabilized by the tail, in my opinion, is not even worth discussing - here I categorically disagree with you.
            As a result, if we are talking about the advantages of a rifled or smooth-bore gun in terms of the influence of the parasitic mass of the leading devices that ensure stabilization of projectiles in flight, then a smooth-bore gun has only a slight advantage over a smooth-bore one for BPS in this regard, but is disastrously inferior to it for OFS and KS. And here you can’t convince me otherwise.
            1. 0
              19 March 2024 01: 53
              Sorry, but when you initially wrote about the parasitic mass of the driving device (belt) of rifled gun projectiles, you wrote about the characteristics of the “gun-projectile” system in general, and not specifically about the use of BPS in them.

              I wrote specifically about sub-caliber ammunition in the material itself, in the comments to which we are talking.

              The second and most important reason for switching to a new gun is related to increasing the firepower of the tank due to the possibility of using the most modern sub-caliber shells.

              Of course, L27A1 is still relevant today - and will be relevant in the near future. But in the future, the old Challenger 2 cannon will no longer be able to cover all the needs in the fight against armor, even if the British decide to produce ammunition.

              This is due to the fact that in a rifled barrel it is physically impossible to provide the same high maximum pressure when firing as in a smooth one. The L30A1’s is significantly lower than that of the old German 120-mm L44 cannon and its counterpart on the Abrams tank, with values ​​exceeding 700 MPa.

              Based on this, a significant increase in the initial velocities of projectiles or their maintenance with increasing length and mass of the core is greatly limited. Moreover, the rifling also means a larger friction area and a heavier driving device for guiding the projectile in the barrel and sealing off the powder gases.

              So it is impossible to create a projectile that would be similar in penetration to modern American and German models. But after installation, the guns can be bought either from the same Germans or from the Americans.


              I wrote about them in the first comment addressed to you:

              They also impose a limit on the maximum pressure that the projectile’s driving device can withstand. They supplement it with a parasitic mass and spend part of the energy of the gunpowder to overcome friction in the barrel. For sub-caliber projectiles, all these indicators are extremely critical.


              but for a cumulative and high-explosive fragmentation projectile, the mass of the copper belt of the projectiles, stabilized by rotation, with the mass of the system of opening blades of similar projectiles, stabilized by the tail, in my opinion, is not even worth discussing - here I categorically disagree with you.

              I didn’t even talk about this. Moreover, I didn’t even think that you would accept the term “leading device” in relation to the leading belt of the projectile. For the same OFS, feathers are also a waste of useful volume that could have gone to explosives.
            2. 0
              19 March 2024 02: 15
              but for a cumulative and high-explosive fragmentation projectile, the mass of the copper belt of the projectiles, stabilized by rotation, with the mass of the system of opening blades of similar projectiles, stabilized by the tail

              The only question is, how many serial cumulative projectiles can you find that are stabilized by rotation? Only French crafts come to mind. The empennage for the KS, as well as for the BPS, is a mandatory attribute, whether for a rifled gun or a smooth-bore gun.
  13. 0
    20 March 2024 10: 17
    Tanks now work like howitzers; Armata needs a gun from the Coalition to operate at 10-20 km with an alternating charge from indirect firing positions
  14. 0
    22 March 2024 12: 41
    That is, the practice of privatization and closure of production is vicious, but rather multi-industry production is needed.
    In general, their business is more interesting with pressure and power supply and off-road capability
  15. 0
    April 3 2024 19: 19
    Give them to x. O. rubbish and don't sweat it. Who needs you in the swamps?
  16. 0
    April 16 2024 19: 21
    As far as I know, the arbors also have separate cap loading. For each type of projectile there is a suitable type of charge. Combined with manual loading, it’s a complete game, with an appropriate combat rate of fire.