Air defense systems of the Chinese fleet: 12,7-14,5 mm anti-aircraft machine gun mounts, as well as 25, 30 and 37 mm first-generation anti-aircraft machine guns

33
Air defense systems of the Chinese fleet: 12,7-14,5 mm anti-aircraft machine gun mounts, as well as 25, 30 and 37 mm first-generation anti-aircraft machine guns

In the comments to one of the publications dedicated to export systems Defense, created in the PRC, one of the readers asked for more details about the air defense systems of the Chinese fleet.

Until the second half of the 1980s, the PLA Navy did not have any warships equipped with anti-aircraft guns. missile complexes, and only anti-aircraft machine gun mounts could be used to counter enemy combat aircraft, as well as artillery small and medium caliber automatic weapons. Anti-aircraft machine guns and most of the 25-37 mm automatic anti-aircraft guns were equipped with very primitive sights, and these naval air defense systems did not interact with centralized fire control systems. Some of the guns installed on patrol ships and destroyers were interfaced with naval PUAZOs that received data from radars and optical rangefinders. However, due to the backwardness and low reliability of Chinese fire control systems created in the 1970s and 1980s, the effectiveness of anti-aircraft guns was low, and they could not effectively protect the ships of the Chinese fleet from modern air attack weapons at that time.



12,7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun mounts


In the 1950s, the PLA Navy began to include boats and ships armed with Soviet-made 12,7 mm DShKM machine guns. In 1955, deliveries of the Type 54 machine gun, which was a licensed version of the DShKM, began.


Since the culture of weapons production in China at that time was very low, the quality of the first Chinese 12,7 mm machine guns left much to be desired. In this regard, simultaneously with the development of the Type 54 production, DShKM were supplied from the USSR.

In the 1960s, an improved Type 54-I machine gun, which was slightly lighter, went into production. Also, to improve reliability and reduce production costs, Chinese specialists made a number of changes to the design and improved the locking mechanism. The rate of fire and practical rate of fire remained at the level of the basic model, the effective range for air targets also did not exceed 700 m. On late-release machine guns, the ribbing disappeared from the replaceable barrel and a handle appeared, making it easier to replace, the weight of the tripod mount was reduced to a minimum, improved sighting devices were introduced, and a box for 70 rounds was used.

The PLA Navy's Type 54 and Type 54-I machine guns remained in active service until the early 21st century and have been decommissioned along with the boats, patrol ships, and small landing craft they were mounted on. A small number of Type 54-Is now remain in coastal defense units.

In the late 1970s, serial production of the Type 77 machine gun began, with a direct supply of powder gases to the bolt carrier, which was an independent Chinese design, but its tape drive mechanism repeated the DShKM.

Although the weight of the new machine gun on the mount did not exceed 57 kg, and in terms of its main combat characteristics it corresponded to the Type 54-I, this weapon Due to problems with service life and reliability, it was used by the Ground Forces in a limited way. Information on the use of Type 77 machine guns in the PLA Navy could not be found.

An improved version, created on the basis of the Type 77, was the Type 85 heavy machine gun, launched into production in the second half of the 1980s. Chinese sources say that (compared to the Type 77) the Type 85 machine gun became cheaper to produce, more reliable and lighter. However, this weapon did not take root on the warships of the Chinese fleet, which, in all likelihood, was due to the presence of a large number of well-mastered Type 54 and Type 54-I, the greater weight of which did not have much significance when mounted on pedestal mounts.


However, a number of Type 85 machine guns are in service with the Chinese Coast Guard, and they are primarily intended to intercept maritime intruders, but can also fire at air targets if necessary.


In the mid-1990s, Norinco began producing the 12,7 mm QJZ89 machine gun, which is very light for its caliber. Without cartridges, together with the mount, it weighs 32 kg. The rate of fire is 550-600 rounds per minute. The combat rate of fire is about 100 rounds per minute. The QJZ89 has a mixed-type automation: a mechanism with direct gas discharge from the barrel bore to the bolt through a gas tube under the barrel is used to unlock the rotary bolt, and the recoil energy of the movable block is used to drive the automation. The controls include a pistol grip with a trigger and a butt with a buffer-shock absorber.

Currently, the QJZ89 machine guns have been adopted by the PLA Ground Forces and Navy, and are also actively sold to foreign customers.


12,7 mm QJZ89 machine gun on the PLA Navy frigate Type 054A

The QJZ12,7 89mm machine guns have been spotted on Chinese warships engaged in anti-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia. They are also seen as a last line of defense against drones-kamikaze and speedboats.

14,5 mm anti-aircraft machine gun mounts


In the 1950s and 1960s, the PLA Army and Navy were armed with 14,5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns, which were significantly superior in firing range and destructive power to machine guns chambered for 12,7x108 mm cartridges.

As it turned out, the 14,5 mm twin-barreled guns were well suited for arming boats, small minesweepers, landing and patrol ships of small displacement, as well as logistics vessels.

The first Chinese 14,5-mm naval "twin" was a deck pedestal mount known as the Type 59-I, a copy of the Soviet ZPU 2M-7. The official adoption of the naval ZPU Type 59-I into service occurred in 1963.


14,5 mm twin anti-aircraft machine gun mount Type 59-I

The operating principle of the 14,5 mm naval machine guns was no different from the KPV. However, some of the parts of the Soviet 2M-7 and its Chinese clone were made of corrosion-resistant alloys. The weight of the "twin" was 560 kg. The tabular firing range for air targets was 2000 m, the effective range was slightly more than 1000 m. Each machine gun was fed from a 100-round box. The total rate of fire was 1100 rounds per minute. The practical rate of fire was 200 rounds per minute.


The installation was controlled by one shooter. The vertical aiming angles are in the range from -10° to +90°, and there is the possibility of circular firing. However, given that aiming was carried out by muscle power using shoulder rests, shooting at fast-moving targets is difficult.

Based on the experience of operating the Type 59-I naval installation and the Type 58 land-based twin-barreled gun, the Type 65 naval ZPU was created, which was not widely used and was mainly installed on boats.

The twin ZPU Type 1970 was produced in large quantities for the PLA Navy since the early 69s. This one differs from previous versions of the 14,5 mm mounts by having finned barrels, which should improve their cooling when firing long bursts.


14,5 mm twin anti-aircraft machine gun mounts Type 69

In addition to various floating craft, Type 69 installations were permanently placed in fortifications on the coast and covered structures on disputed reefs in the South China Sea.


The twin Type 58 ZPUs were phased out of service in the PLAAF's combat units in the second half of the 1980s, but the Navy continues to use the Type 69 mounts on ships and vessels built in the 1980s and 1990s.


Although the twin 14,5mm Type 69 mount weighs approximately twice as much as the Type 59-I, it is better suited for naval use, can accurately fire at air targets flying at speeds of up to 300 m/s thanks to its mechanized guidance, and provides more comfortable conditions for the shooter.

In addition to the twin 14,5 mm ZPUs, the Chinese Coast Guard vessels also have quadruple mounts of the same caliber, but their designation and characteristics are unknown.


About 20 years ago, the PLA adopted the 14,5mm QJG02 machine gun and began mounting it on the decks of warships.


In the early 56s, a twin-barreled mount, structurally reminiscent of the Type 2000 ZPU, was tested on the Type 69 corvette.


But the most simple single-barrel ZPU on a pedestal, without mechanical drives for vertical and horizontal guidance, directly controlled by the shooter, went into production. Chinese sources write that 14,5-mm machine guns installed on the sides are needed for defense against high-speed surface and low-altitude air targets, as well as for the destruction of surfaced sea mines.

25mm Type 61 anti-aircraft guns


In the 1950s, China received 25mm twin mounts 2M-3 and 2M-3M along with Soviet boats, ships and auxiliary vessels.


25mm twin mounts 2M-3

The 2M-3 artillery mount used 25 mm 110-PM automatic guns, designed in the late 1940s on the basis of the 25 mm 84-KM automatic cannon used in the 72-K anti-aircraft gun. The 2M-3 AU with the 110-PM automatic gun was accepted into service in early 1953. Production of the modernized version in the USSR continued until 1984.


The total mass of the installation exceeded 1500 kg. The crew consists of 2 people. Armor thickness of 4 mm protects the installation and the crew from light fragments. Guidance is carried out using mechanical and hydraulic drives, which allows firing at fast-flying air targets. Vertical guidance angles from -10 to +85°. On early-production installations, loading was carried out with clips of 7 rounds, and the rate of fire of one gun was 270-300 rounds/min. The machine gun with belt feed gives a rate of fire of up to 450 rounds/min. Belts are placed in boxes of 65 rounds, weighing 55 kg each. A projectile weighing 281 g has an initial velocity of about 900 m/s. The fragmentation-incendiary projectile contains 21 g of explosive. An armor-piercing projectile at a distance of 1000 m at a normal is capable of penetrating armor thickness of 26 mm. Maximum firing range – up to 7500 m. Altitude reach – 2500 m. Effective range against anti-ship cruise missiles and jet combat aircraft does not exceed 2000 m.

The licensed version of the 2M-3M anti-aircraft artillery mount, designated Type 61, went into production in the early 1960s.


In the second half of the 1970s, an improved 25mm mount with horizontal barrels was tested, but this model did not receive widespread use.

Chinese sources write that boats armed with 25-mm machine guns took part in combat clashes with Taiwanese artillery boats with 40-mm Bofors L60 guns, and at a distance closer than 800 m, the rapid-fire 25-mm guns performed very well.


The Type 61 naval artillery mounts are currently considered obsolete, but due to their simple design and high reliability, they still remain part of the armament of patrol, landing and auxiliary floating craft.


Type 74 landing craft armed with a Type 25 61mm twin gun mount

It is expected that Chinese 25mm twin guns will be retired in the next decade along with ships built 20-25 years ago.

30mm Type 69 anti-aircraft guns


Shortly before relations between Moscow and Beijing deteriorated due to ideological differences and military-technical cooperation between the countries ceased, Chinese specialists managed to get acquainted with the drawings of the then newest 30-mm twin naval anti-aircraft mount AK-230.


30mm anti-aircraft gun AK-230

For the late 1950s, this was a very advanced and high-tech anti-aircraft gun, which was remotely aimed at the target by a control radar or an optical sight, in the range of vertical aiming angles from -12 to +87° and had the ability to fire all around.

The installation weighing slightly more than 1900 kg gave a rate of fire of 2000 rounds/min. Fire is conducted in bursts of up to 100 rounds per barrel, after which cooling with sea water is carried out for a certain time. Firing is allowed until the ammunition is used up (500 rounds per barrel) with breaks every 100 rounds for 15-20 seconds. After this, the barrel must be replaced and the machine gun must be repaired.

The original 30x129 mm ammunition with electric primer ignition was used for firing. The ammunition load included high-explosive incendiary, high-explosive and armor-piercing tracer shells. The armor-piercing tracer shell weighing 360 g had an initial velocity of 1050 m/s. The maximum slant firing range reaches 4000 m, effective against fast-moving air targets – no more than 2500 m.

Work on cloning the AK-230 in China began in the mid-1960s. In 1970, testing began on the first prototype of the unit, designated Type 69, which was destroyed during firing. In mid-1971, three more prototypes were tested, and more than 7500 shots were fired from them. During the tests, it was established that the automatics were generally functional, but there were problems with reliability and survivability, and the military demanded improvements.

However, due to economic and technological difficulties caused by political upheavals, the development was delayed, and encouraging results were achieved only in 1973, and the first production samples were manufactured in 1975.

But the problems did not stop there. During acceptance tests, several installations experienced shell explosions. It seemed that after refining the automation, the problem had been solved - 3000 shells were fired from one installation without failures, but in 1976, such an incident occurred again. Research showed that the cause was insufficient strength of the breech, and the installation was sent back for further revision.

In 1978, 30 shots were fired from the modified 4400-mm mount, while the designated resource was 4000 shots. In addition to strengthening the artillery part, attention was paid to the corrosion resistance of critical parts and the tightness of the mount as a whole. New materials were introduced and the most modern radio-element base available in the PRC at that time was used. And only in 1982, after thorough testing, the PLA Navy command decided to install the 30-mm mount on new warships.


However, the 30 mm Type 69 machine guns were not widely used in the Chinese Navy, which was due to the high cost of production and the need for careful adjustment of parts. In addition, sailors accustomed to relatively primitive 25 and 37 mm anti-aircraft guns were not enthusiastic about the rather complex 30 mm machine guns with ammunition unique to the PLA. The situation was also complicated by the fact that the Soviet Union did not transfer the MP-104 Rys radar fire control system to China, and Chinese specialists had to independently create their own analogue, which was inferior to the Soviet FCS.


Missile boat Type 37-II

As a result, only the Type 30, Type 69G and Type 21-II missile boats were armed with 21 mm Type 37 mounts.

37mm Type 61 anti-aircraft guns


The Chinese version of the Soviet 37 mm twin B-11 is known as the Type 61. This anti-aircraft mount, like the 25 mm vertical twin of the same name, has a very simple design, but the 37 mm artillery machine guns are located in the horizontal plane. Since the Type 61 mount weighed 3400 kg, it was used to arm larger ships.


Twin 37mm Type 61 anti-aircraft gun

The design of the V-11 artillery mount began during the Second World War, but it entered service with the Soviet Navy in 1946. The oscillating part of the 37-mm twin naval mount consisted of two machine guns created on the basis of the 70-K anti-aircraft gun, which traces its lineage back to the 40-mm Bofors L60.

The guns are mounted in a single cradle. The monoblock barrel has forced water cooling. Manual aiming mechanisms with two speeds (for fast and accurate aiming). In the vertical plane, the mount was aimed within the range from -10 to 85°. One person could control the mount. The crew is 7 people. The feed is from 5-round clips loaded manually. The rate of fire is 360 rounds/min. The firing range at air targets is up to 4000 m.

The ammunition load includes fragmentation-tracer and armor-piercing-tracer projectiles. The fragmentation tracer projectile weighing 0,735 kg has an initial velocity of 880 m/s and is loaded with 34 g of explosives. The all-metal armor-piercing tracer projectile weighing 0,785 kg, accelerated to 875 m/s, could penetrate armor 1000 mm thick at a distance of 38 m.


The 37-mm Type 61 anti-aircraft gun was produced in China until 1978 and in terms of the number of units produced, it surpasses all Chinese-made naval artillery guns.


In total, more than 1000 of these installations were manufactured. In addition to boats and ships, the 37-mm Type 61 machine guns were placed in fixed concrete positions and used for anti-aircraft cover of naval bases and anti-landing fortifications.


Chinese frigates with 37mm automatic guns took part in the battle with South Vietnamese ships for the Paracel Islands in 1974 and with Vietnamese patrol ships for the Spratly Islands in 1988.


Frigate Ture 065

During production, improvements were made to the design of the 37-mm Chinese twin-barreled rifles aimed at simplifying production technology and ease of use.

The Type 37 artillery boats, Type 055 small patrol ships, Type 062 minesweepers, Type 6610 and Type 053 frigates, Type 065H053 and Type 2K guided missile frigates, and Type 053 and Type 051G destroyers were armed with 051-mm twin anti-aircraft guns.


Small patrol ship Type 062

At present, all minesweepers, frigates and destroyers that had 37-mm Type 61 mounts have been decommissioned. Machine guns of this type could have remained on boats and patrol ships transferred to the Coast Guard, as well as in coastal anti-aircraft batteries.

Продолжение следует ...
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    3 February 2025 04: 21
    Chinese frigates with 37mm automatic guns took part in the battle with South Vietnamese ships for the Paracel Islands in 1974 and with Vietnamese patrol ships for the Spratly Islands in 1988.
    Wow, I haven't even heard of the first one. The Chinese took a risk and profited from the scraps of South Vietnam. And they pulled it out against, at least formally, a stronger detachment. The Americans didn't even twitch to help their protégés.
    1. +6
      3 February 2025 09: 54
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Wow, I haven't even heard of the first one. The Chinese took a risk and profited from the scraps of South Vietnam. And they pulled it out against, at least formally, a stronger detachment. The Americans didn't even twitch to help their protégés.

      There are contradictory data regarding the composition of the Chinese squadron. Four ships participated in the hostilities on the part of the South Vietnamese Navy. Two former American coastal defense frigates with a displacement of 1800 tons each, with powerful artillery armament: three 127-mm main caliber guns, as well as four twin 40-mm and one twin 20-mm anti-aircraft mounts. A former American escort destroyer with a displacement of 1300 tons was armed with three 76-mm guns, two twin 40-mm and eight 20-mm anti-aircraft mounts. The weakest in the South Vietnamese group was a minesweeper with a displacement of 650 tons armed with a 76-mm gun, two 40-mm and four twin 20-mm anti-aircraft machine guns. It is worth noting that these were ships built during the years of the Great Patriotic War, which were in poor technical condition.
      The American administration understood that the fall of the Saigon regime was imminent. At the same time, the normalization of relations between the US and China began, leading to Washington and Beijing acting as a united front against Moscow. The Americans did not spoil relations with their strategic ally because of some islands in the South China Sea.
      1. +1
        3 February 2025 11: 46
        Quote: Bongo
        The weakest in the South Vietnamese group was a minesweeper with a displacement of 650 tons, armed with a 76-mm gun, two 40-mm and four twin 20-mm anti-aircraft guns. It is worth noting that these were ships built during the war, which were in poor technical condition.

        The Chinese, as I understand it, categorically deny the participation of missile boats in the battle.

        Quote: Bongo
        At the same time, relations between the US and China began to normalize, leading to Washington and Beijing acting as a united front against Moscow. The Americans did not spoil relations with their strategic ally because of some islands in the South China Sea.
        Of course. But to openly dump your current ally in favor of a potential one, and China never became an ally of the US, so-so. However, the Anglo-Saxons...
        1. +3
          3 February 2025 12: 36
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          The Chinese, as I understand it, categorically deny the participation of missile boats in the battle.

          The guided missile ships did not participate in this battle. It was all decided by artillery.
  2. +1
    3 February 2025 09: 23
    Thanks to the author for an interesting continuation of the article series!
  3. -2
    3 February 2025 09: 26
    The 37mm is a powerful weapon, we shouldn't have taken it out of production. It can easily be mounted on an infantry fighting vehicle and used for weapons. A truck and a 37mm gun with a fire control system. And to protect rear facilities from drones.
    And a 37mm bb shell will penetrate all NATO infantry fighting vehicles.
    1. +4
      3 February 2025 10: 08
      Quote: Zaurbek
      The 37mm is a powerful weapon, it was a shame we took it out of production.

      The 37-mm 67-K machine gun based on the Bofors L60 is hopelessly outdated and has no prospects for further use. Not only is it "out of production", but it was removed from service 30 years ago, and all 37-mm towed anti-aircraft guns have long been disposed of.
      Quote: Zaurbek
      It is quite possible to install it on an infantry fighting vehicle and use it for training.

      A clip-fed gun on an infantry fighting vehicle? wassat
      Quote: Zaurbek
      A truck and a 37mm gun mount with a fire control system. And to protect rear facilities from drones.

      With what FCS, any suggestions for finished products? Since the ammunition does not include shells with a remote or programmable shell, a direct hit is required for destruction, which is problematic given the low rate of fire.
      Quote: Zaurbek
      And a 37mm bb shell will penetrate all NATO infantry fighting vehicles.

      Before writing something like this, it would be reasonable to inquire about the armor penetration of a 37mm shell and the frontal protection of modern Western infantry fighting vehicles.
      1. +2
        3 February 2025 11: 19
        Counter question: for what calibers do we have all this? We already have it in 30mm and 57mm, but it appeared relatively recently and is not widely available.
        Technically, the Russian industry can make a BOPS for 37mm, it is easier to make a projectile with a prog fuse for 37mm than for 30mm. There are serial FCS and OLS for ZRPK for Tunguska and Pantsir and Derivation projects. Or is something special needed for 37mm?
        But 37mm weighs less than 57mm and is easier to re-equip IFVs, and it is also easier to equip chassis based on 6x6 and 8x8.
        The direct successor of the Bofors 40mm (modern) is on the Swedish infantry fighting vehicle with all types of shells and with a fire control system.
        A 37mm APFSDS will dramatically increase the armor penetration of an autocannon, and even a simple HE shell will dramatically increase the high-explosive and fragmentation effect compared to a 30mm shell. Something like that.
        As for the availability or non-availability in production, 57mm is not in production either.
        1. +6
          3 February 2025 12: 35
          Quote: Zaurbek
          counter-poll - what calibers do we have all this for? It already exists in 30mm and 57mm, but it appeared relatively recently and is not widely available.

          The 30mm is produced in series, I can’t say about the 57mm, but new developments were carried out in this caliber.
          Quote: Zaurbek
          But 37mm weighs less than 57mm and it is easier to re-equip the IFV

          Bury the stewardess, no one will revive the production of 37-mm machine guns and ammunition for them.
          1. +2
            3 February 2025 18: 28
            I have the impression that they won’t do anything other than what’s available in 30mm.
            1. +1
              4 February 2025 02: 17
              Quote: Zaurbek
              I have the impression that they won’t do anything other than what’s available in 30mm.

              Most likely...
              I would play around with the 45mm caliber, but that's an amateur's thought...
              1. +1
                4 February 2025 11: 11
                If you look at the enemy and NATO countries, they are developing differently.
                The Swedes use the descendant of the Bofors 40mm, the Americans and the French 35-50mm autocannons. There is another approach - development in the dimensions of old guns (in our case 30mm 2 a42) of guns with an increased caliber while maintaining the length of the cartridge.
                It's more complicated with anti-aircraft guns, the main calibers for autocannons are 37-57-75-85mm. There were 45mm aircraft cannons, I don't remember anti-aircraft guns.
                1. +1
                  4 February 2025 16: 53
                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  There were 45mm aircraft guns, but I don’t remember anti-aircraft guns.

                  Towed automatic cannon 49-K and shipborne quadruple automatic artillery mount SM-20-ZIF
                  1. +1
                    4 February 2025 18: 30
                    Is the projectile itself similar to an anti-tank gun?
                    1. 0
                      5 February 2025 12: 03
                      Quote: Zaurbek
                      Is the projectile itself similar to an anti-tank gun?

                      I can’t say for sure, but most likely the shot is the same size.
              2. 0
                4 February 2025 20: 40
                I would play around with the 45mm caliber, but that's an amateur's thought...

                There were such studies, but according to the overall assessment of “efficiency/cost/price of deployment (restoration) of production/availability of reserves from old systems”, the 57 mm caliber still won.
                I think that the main factor was the possibility of using in this caliber cartridges from the S-60, which were in storage in commercial quantities of the category suitable for use. This cannot be said about 45-mm cartridges.
                1. +1
                  5 February 2025 12: 14
                  Quote: Bogalex
                  I would play around with the 45mm caliber, but that's an amateur's thought...

                  There were such studies, but according to the overall assessment of “efficiency/cost/price of deployment (restoration) of production/availability of reserves from old systems”, the 57 mm caliber still won.
                  I think that the main factor was the possibility of using in this caliber cartridges from the S-60, which were in storage in commercial quantities of the category suitable for use. This cannot be said about 45-mm cartridges.

                  In terms of explosive mass and armor penetration, the 45 mm projectile significantly exceeds the 37 mm, and especially the 30 mm. In the dimensions of the 45 mm, it is quite possible to create a fairly effective projectile with a programmable detonation or with a radio fuse, and an armor-piercing shell with armor penetration sufficient to confidently destroy all existing infantry fighting vehicles. At the same time, in the case of using 45 mm machine guns to arm armored vehicles, the number of rounds in the ammunition will be much higher than with a 57 mm caliber.
                  Regarding the choice of the 57-mm caliber based on large stocks in warehouses, you are mistaken. Ammunition for the AZP-57 was designed in the 1950s and is now hopelessly outdated, the range does not include projectiles with a radar fuse or effective BPS. Production of 57-mm rounds in the USSR ended in the 1970s, and by now they are approaching their shelf life, and there are not many of them left.
  4. +1
    3 February 2025 09: 40
    I was always interested in why we produced so many anti-aircraft artillery barrels with similar calibers, and not interchangeable ones, 23-25,30, 37,57-120, 122, why the same story with tanks and artillery mounts, 125-130-152-XNUMX-XNUMX, and with the same caliber shells could not be interchangeable
    1. +2
      3 February 2025 10: 12
      Quote: Private shooter
      I was always interested in why we produced so many anti-aircraft artillery barrels with similar calibers, and not interchangeable ones, 23-25,30, 37,57-120, 122, why the same story with tanks and artillery mounts, 125-130-152-XNUMX-XNUMX, and with the same caliber shells could not be interchangeable

      This is pretty obvious. Compare the weight, rate of fire and range of the guns, and everything will become clear.
    2. +5
      3 February 2025 13: 06
      Quote: Private shooter
      I was always interested in why we produced so many anti-aircraft artillery barrels with similar calibers, and not interchangeable ones, 23-25

      25 mm is a legacy of the pre-war MZA, "small Bofors". After the war, it was supplanted by 23 mm, and remained only in the navy.
      23 mm - also pre-war, but due to known problems with Taubin's products it came to the ZA only after the war. Pros - less weight, higher rate of fire.
      Quote: Private shooter
      30-37

      37 mm is a legacy of the pre-war MZA, the "big Bofors". Loading is clip-type.
      30 mm - post-war caliber, came from the Air Force. Less weight, higher rate of fire.
      In general, after the war there was a transition from a pair of 25-37 mm to a pair of 23-30 mm.

      They also forgot 45 mm - 21-K semiautomatics and SM-20-ZIF automatics. Displaced by 57 mm caliber.
      Quote: Private shooter
      57

      Closed the hole between MZA and SZA.
      Quote: Private shooter
      120-122-125-130-152

      120 mm is a mortar. 120 mm guns are only for the navy, and in vanishing quantities already in the 40s of the last century, because they are the legacy of the Empire.
      122 mm is the standard caliber of rifled corps guns and divisional howitzers.
      125 mm - smoothbore for tanks.
      130 mm - naval caliber. The army has it only in long-range guns, together with 180 mm.
      152 mm - standard 6 inches. Division howitzers, corps howitzer guns, navy.

      They also forgot about the 115 mm smoothbore T-62.
      Quote: Private shooter
      Moreover, with the same caliber, the shells could not be interchangeable

      Yes, yes... a quick shot for a cannon, a quick shot for a howitzer-cannon. smile
      1. +4
        3 February 2025 19: 18
        My respects, it is worth adding 100 mm guns to the list. The last legacy of the fleet, which successfully took root as a tank (T-54/55) and as an anti-aircraft gun. Only the combined 100 mm gun BMP-3 can be called original.
        1. +1
          4 February 2025 02: 19
          Vladislav, hello!
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          My respects, 100mm guns should be added to the list.

          Then it will be 115 mm.
          1. +1
            4 February 2025 21: 47
            Quote: Bongo
            Vladislav, hello!
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            My respects, 100mm guns should be added to the list.

            Then it will be 115 mm.

            Good night, Sergey!
            Comrade didn't forget about 115mm for the T-62! I forgot about 100mm for the smoothbore Rapier.
      2. +1
        3 February 2025 19: 24
        This does not justify such a discrepancy in calibers, this is just logistics and production, now in principle there is no concept of a cannon and a howitzer, there is a gun and the trajectory is changed by the amount of charge, this is everything that is 152-155 and higher and what prevents making the caliber of the MZA in the navy and army the same or on land 23 is better than in the navy 25, the same applies to the caliber of 122 and 130 and shells from the dream do not fit the Hyacinths
        1. +2
          4 February 2025 12: 46
          Quote: Private shooter
          now in principle there is no concept of a cannon and a howitzer, there is a gun and the trajectory is changed by the amount of charge, this is everything that is 152-155 and above

          So now we have come to a single caliber and a single weapon - a divisional gun-howitzer 152/155 mm / 47-52 caliber.
          And the division into pure howitzers, howitzer-guns and guns is from the last century. Back then they were also at different levels: howitzer - division, howitzer-gun - corps, and gun - artillery OM and BM. So there was no special zoo in logistics: every cricket had its own hearth.
          Quote: Private shooter
          and what prevents making the caliber of the MZA in the navy and army the same

          And it is the same: 30 mm. With a single interspecific cartridge 30x165.
          25 mm in the navy is a vanishing species, a legacy of the Soviet Navy. When ships with 2M-3 are written off, the caliber will go away too.
          Quote: Private shooter
          the same applies to caliber 122 and 130

          The army will not abandon the 122 mm - it does not have any other light systems yet.
          And the Navy will not refuse 130 mm. They already tried to offer 130 mm AU instead of AK-152 - it did not work, there is no possibility of anti-aircraft fire. And switching to 122 mm for the Navy means re-developing and producing the BK, and with a unitary shot.
          1. 0
            4 February 2025 20: 47
            The army will not abandon the 122 mm - it does not have any other light systems yet.

            Already abandoned in favor of 120-mm combined guns. Until 2022, the D-30 remained only in the Airborne Forces, in the ground forces it was supposed to be replaced by Nona-K, Floks, Khost, Vena and Magnolia. The SVO made some adjustments, but this is rather forced. Whether the 122 mm caliber will return to the artillery of the ground forces is an open question.
  5. -1
    3 February 2025 09: 45
    Quote: Zaurbek
    37mm is a powerful weapon, we shouldn't have taken it out of production. It can be easily mounted on an infantry fighting vehicle and used for ammunition.

    I wonder what you're smoking there? What a smart guy - he's the only one who's smart in all the fights.
    1. +1
      3 February 2025 11: 22
      Well, who should be smart...otherwise we wouldn't have produced three Tak, three attack helicopters and three fighters - all similar, but completely different.
      1. +1
        3 February 2025 11: 45
        And that the Americans were simultaneously producing a dozen modifications of the Sherman and two attack helicopters?
        1. +1
          3 February 2025 11: 52
          One for the VMP and MP and one for the Land Forces. Moreover, the Cobra was simply modernized, and the Apache won the tender and became mass-produced. And they have one Abrams tank.
  6. +2
    3 February 2025 13: 58
    hi
    As always, an interesting article!

    But even more interesting will be the next article, where, IMHO, technologies will step from 37 mm Type 61 to Goalkeepers and beyond!
    And this will be a giant leap literally "before our eyes", from the 80s to this day...
    1. +3
      3 February 2025 16: 06
      Andrey, hello!
      Quote: Wildcat
      But even more interesting will be the next article, where, IMHO, technologies will step from 37 mm Type 61 to Goalkeepers and beyond!
      And this will be a giant leap literally "before our eyes", from the 80s to this day...

      The next article will be about medium and large caliber anti-aircraft artillery: 57-130 mm, and modern small-caliber artillery will be discussed in the 3rd part.
  7. +3
    3 February 2025 15: 10
    "In 1979, Hanoi officially declared its claims to all the disputed islands, and since the early 80s has gradually established its posts on one island after another.

    These actions caused protests and counteractions from other countries in the region. A real "race for islands" unfolded in the Spratly archipelago. As a result, it naturally led to a clash between the Vietnamese and the PRC.
    In 1987, under the pretext of fulfilling a UNESCO mandate to establish a meteorological station, the Chinese placed their posts on a number of islands. Upon discovering this, the Vietnamese accelerated their takeover of the archipelago.

    In March 1988, about 100 military construction workers from Engineer Regiment E-83 sailed to Johnson Reef on two 500-ton Army transports, HQ-604 and HQ-605 (former World War II-era American ships transferred to South Vietnam), to build outposts.
    They arrived at the site on the evening of March 13. At dawn on March 14, a unit under the command of Junior Lieutenant Tran Van Phuong landed on Johnson Reef and raised the Vietnamese flag there. Soon, three Chinese frigates, Nanchong, Xiangtan, and Yingtan, appeared near the islands. These ships were of the 053 type, developed on the basis of the Soviet Project 50 Gornostay patrol ships (NATO classification: Riga class).
    A group of Chinese sailors were dropped off on the reef from them. A scuffle broke out, then the Chinese opened fire with AK-47s. The Vietnamese builders, most of whom were unarmed, were finished off with bayonets.

    At the same time, the frigates opened fire on the Vietnamese transports. HQ-604 quickly sank, HQ-605 caught fire and retreated, but also sank on the way back to Vietnam.
    The battle lasted less than half an hour. During it, 68 Vietnamese were killed, 9 were taken prisoner. One sailor was wounded on the Chinese side.

    In the conflict, Vietnam counted on the help of the Soviet fleet, which was stationed at that time in Cam Ranh, but did not receive it. Moreover, the Soviet leadership, interested at that time in restoring relations with the PRC, even refused to make a diplomatic statement condemning China."
    https://warspot.ru/6553-porohovaya-bochka-yugo-vostochnoy-azii