Military Review

Projects to increase the survivability of the main battle tank Chiftain

17
By the beginning of the seventies it became clear that the main combat Tanks Chieftain in their current form will be able to remain leaders only with continuous improvement and improvement. The development of arms abroad, primarily in the Soviet Union, required the creation of new armored vehicles and modernization of the old. In the search for new ideas and design solutions, several private and state organizations were involved that were most directly related to tank building. As a result of long scientific and design work, several projects appeared to increase the survivability of Chiftain's MBT on the battlefield. Moreover, it was proposed to improve this parameter in various ways.


Chiftain Mk 10


Chiftain Mk 11


New armor

The most obvious ways to improve the ability of the tank to perform tasks and oppose the enemy’s armored machinery were the improvement of its weapons and equipment, as well as the improvement of body armor. Despite all the efforts, it was not possible to achieve a dramatic increase in the performance of 120-mm guns. The electronics, in turn, were updated regularly during each new upgrade. Thus, it remained to work out the issue of strengthening the armor.

In the sixties and seventies, several British scientific and design organizations worked on a project codenamed Burlington. The purpose of this project was to create a combined armor that protects against the maximum possible number of modern and promising weapons. The new development has attracted the attention of engineers who worked on the improvement of the "Chieftain", as a result of which a tank modernization project called the Mk.5 / 2 (FV4211) appeared. It was assumed that in accordance with this project it will be possible to build both new tanks and modernize old ones.





The main idea of ​​the Chieftain Mk.5 / 2 project was to equip the combat vehicle with several additional booking modules. With this approach, it was possible to significantly increase the level of protection of the tank and ensure the possibility of upgrading the machine in the conditions of military workshops. However, the first calculations showed that the combined armor "Burlington" in its present form is unsuitable for upgrading Chieftain tanks. When using it, the combat weight of the tank increased so much that it was also required to use a more powerful engine. For this reason, I had to look for new ideas.

In the original Burlington armor, rejected by the developers of the FV4211 project, fairly heavy steel plates were used. Aluminum has been proposed as a substitute for steel. When using this metal, the level of protection of the additional booking modules decreased markedly. At the same time, the mass of the whole structure decreased. As a result of analyzing the ratio of weight loss and protection level, British tank builders concluded that the use of the Burlington armor variant with aluminum sheets was suitable.

Thus, several modules should be placed on the tank, consisting of an aluminum or steel hull and containing several aluminum plates inside. Such blocks were supposed to be installed on the frontal part of the hull and on the front of the tower. In addition, at a certain stage of the project, there was a proposal to equip the hull with the long and narrow modules. In this configuration, according to calculations, the level of protection should have increased in all directions, except for the stern.





An alternative option for the placement of additional modules was also considered, which was less complex in manufacturing and installation. In accordance with it, it was proposed to use four flat modules of a relatively simple form and one wedge-shaped. The latter was supposed to be mounted on the forehead of the hull, while four others were intended for installation on the sides of the hull and the tower, with the flat tower modules having to be attached at a distance from the armor using a system of beams. This option of placing additional booking modules increased the resistance of the combat vehicle to attacks from the side and front. However, the additionally unprotected tower caused disputes. In the end, such an option for the placement of additional modules was abandoned.

Projects to increase the survivability of the main battle tank Chiftain


During the study of the configuration of additional modules of the combined Burlington armor, a total of about a dozen options for their placement were considered. Some of the options were abandoned almost immediately, while others lasted almost to the very end of the project. It is also worth noting that the built prototypes of the tank Chieftain Mk.5 / 2 were equipped with different modules to test different configurations. In total, nine serial tanks of the Mk.5 model were converted into this version. Exact data on their tests are not available, but from the fragmentary information available we can draw some conclusions. Obviously, the British tank builders confirmed the fundamental possibility of using additional armored modules. At the same time, they were unable to find the optimal ratio of the level of protection, weight and cost of the modules.

Approximately in the mid-seventies, the “Chieftain” project Mk.5 / 2 was closed, and the obtained developments were used a little later. In the second half of the decade, the United Kingdom commissioned Iran to create the Shir-2 MBT, in the design of which the combined armor was widely used. On the new export tank it was proposed to use the built-in armor of the Chobham type, which was a further development of the ideas and developments of the Burlington project.

Stealth technology

After the FV4211 project, the British launched a new research program, the aim of which was also to increase the survivability of the tank on the battlefield. However, this time it was proposed to improve the capabilities of the combat vehicle not by using weapons, electronics or reservations, but by reducing its visibility. In the late seventies, the leading countries of the world became interested in the so-called stealth technology, which allowed them to reduce the visibility of technology in one or another range. This “fashion” did not bypass the British tank builders. So there was a project Chieftain SID (Signature Integration Demonstrator).



Chiftain sid


To study all the signs by which the tank can be detected, an armored vehicle of one of the later modifications was used. Before testing it was equipped with a set of additional equipment and several mounted modules. It is noteworthy that some of the equipment of the tank was made of simple and affordable materials: a large number of modules for additional “booking” were assembled from the most common plywood. Tank Chieftain SID was not intended for combat operations and was a purely research vehicle, thus making it possible to simplify the preparation of the prototype. On the frontal part, sides and roof of the case of the prototype, the Chieftain SID installed a large number of additional units, which gave the tank a specific "rectangular" look. The same units were installed on the sides and aft of the tower, which visually expanded and lengthened it. The authors of the project did not ignore the chassis, because of what appeared on the road wheels wheels, similar to the automobile.

Also, the chassis has received another original equipment, designed to reduce the likelihood of detection of the tank. At the same time, this innovation could reduce not only the radar or infrared visibility by the units of the chassis, but also by the cloud of dust generated during movement. To do this, on a prototype Chieftain SID mounted devices, because of its similarity with the folk costume of some African and Asian nations, called Grass skirt. The main element of this system is numerous thin synthetic threads, forming a kind of brush. As can be seen from the photos of the prototype, two configurations of this “skirt” were checked on the same tank.

The left track of the tank was covered in the front and rear parts, and the middle support rollers remained unclosed. The threads of the “brushes” freely hung from the suspension devices and formed a kind of curtain around the front and rear parts of the track. On the starboard side of the prototype tank there was a “Grass skirt” of a different design. Above the front of the track, a spring-loaded structure of metal parts was installed, two of which hung down and forward. They were fastened with relatively short and tough threads. Thus, in the front projection, the right caterpillar of the “Demonstrator” was closed by two contiguous “brushes”. Another difference in caterpillar covers was the absence of any aggregates along the starboard side near the drive wheel.

Accurate information about the tests prototype Chieftain SID still missing, which turns out to be fertile ground for the emergence of various rumors and speculation. Judging by the further development of the English armored vehicles, not all the innovations developed during the Signature Integration Demonstrator program had good prospects. Obviously, the closed chassis complicated the operation of the tank, but it did not give particular advantages over the standard configuration. As for the change in the shape of the hull and turret, the appearance of the main tank Challenger 2 confirms the usefulness of such solutions. At the same time, the characteristic contours of the hull and turret of the Challenger-2, formed by straight surfaces, are mainly justified by the need to install armor with a sufficient level of protection.

Reserve for the future

Both options to increase the survivability of tanks Chieftain, with all its originality, did not give the expected results. Modernization of armored vehicles of this type continued to go the old way: upgrading equipment, power plant, etc. Reservations remained old. All new ideas were only tested and tested on the basis of "Chieftain". It came to the practical application of some technical solutions later when creating new models of tanks. Thus, the conceived deep modernization of the main tank Chieftain in practice turned into several research and design works, which resulted in new technologies and know-how.

By the end of the renovation projects for the Chiften tank, the development of the new Challenger armored vehicle, which received special priority, had already begun. The main forces of the English tank building were thrown into the development of a new tank, because of which all work on the improvement of the previous technology was eventually curtailed. All prototypes of the improved Chieftain MBT that have been preserved by this time were remade in accordance with the original project and sent to the troops or transferred to museums. For example, the only prototype tank Chieftain SID is currently stored in the museum of the city of Bovington. From time to time the armored vehicle is shown at various exhibitions, including on the go.


On the materials of the sites:
http://army-guide.com/
http://jedsite.info/
http://hmvf.co.uk/
http://secretprojects.co.uk/
http://pro-tank.ru/
http://armor.kiev.ua/
Author:
17 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ramsi
    ramsi 18 July 2013 09: 36
    +1
    but if you do not make flat reflecting surfaces, but a lot of hemispherical dents, so that the waves reflected are mutually compensated in their foci?
    1. Civil
      Civil 18 July 2013 19: 00
      0
      Oh, we also had so many modernization options, but we started just recently
  2. Alexanderlaskov
    Alexanderlaskov 18 July 2013 10: 22
    +1
    Quote: ramsi
    but if you do not make flat reflecting surfaces, but a lot of hemispherical dents, so that the waves reflected are mutually compensated in their foci?

    Such a shampoo will be quite difficult and expensive.
    1. Witold
      Witold 20 July 2013 10: 23
      +1
      Tank armor is not stamped, but cast and welded.
  3. sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 18 July 2013 11: 47
    +2
    This "clown" does not fight, but sweeps the streets laughing
    1. Crang
      Crang 18 July 2013 21: 56
      0
      Yeah. It is necessary to color the current in a bright orange color.
  4. sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 18 July 2013 12: 19
    0
    Although, there will not be if that straw to lay! laughing
  5. IRBIS
    IRBIS 18 July 2013 17: 33
    +3
    Especially liked the diagrams and drawings. Snowden smokes nervously ...
  6. Crang
    Crang 18 July 2013 21: 26
    0
    Nah. Such a bus cannot be protected normally. Something like a kolymag. Our T-72 and T-90 are much better.
    1. self-propelled
      self-propelled 18 July 2013 23: 59
      +2
      Quote: Krang
      Our T-72 and T-90 are much better.

      indisputably. just keep in mind that the T-72 was put into service in 1973, and the Chiftain was exactly 10 years earlier (in 1963) request
      1. Kars
        Kars 19 July 2013 00: 03
        +2
        And with the T-90 probably compared with the MS)))
      2. Cat
        Cat 19 July 2013 00: 12
        0
        Quote: self-propelled
        indisputably. just keep in mind that the T-72 was put into service in 1973, and the Chiftain was exactly 10 years earlier (in 1963)

        and you do not forget that the T-72 is, so to speak, a "budget version" of the T-64 (which was put into service at the same time as the Chieftains).
  7. Crang
    Crang 19 July 2013 06: 53
    0
    Quote: Cat

    and you do not forget that the T-72 is, so to speak, a "budget version" of the T-64 (which was put into service at the same time as the Chieftains).

    Cat and you are a provocateur. T-72 is an improved version of the T-64.
  8. Crang
    Crang 19 July 2013 06: 55
    0
    Quote: Kars
    And with the T-90 probably compared with the MS)))

    Yes "Chieftain" or "Challenger" what's the difference. One is Churchill 7. The second is Churchill-8. And the Chieftain and the T-62 will do without straining too much.
    1. Kars
      Kars 19 July 2013 10: 45
      +3
      Quote: Krang
      And the Chieftain and the T-62 will do without straining too much.

      Of course, probably the appearance of Chiften did not affect the decision to rearm the Soviet tanks with a 125 mm gun
  9. Crang
    Crang 20 July 2013 20: 02
    +2
    Quote: Kars
    Of course, probably the appearance of Chiften did not affect the decision to rearm the Soviet tanks with a 125 mm gun

    Not how. We worked ahead of the curve. "Chieftain" was a chop for the T-10M, which was leaked in all respects. The T-62 was generally the favorite tank among Arab tankers. On the one hand, the tank is not very difficult and quite comfortable (it is large). On the other hand, the proper firepower superior to western tanks is present. Well, everything is fine with armor / mobility.
    1. Kars
      Kars 21 July 2013 12: 18
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      Not like that. We worked ahead of the curve.

      I always thought that 120 mm is more than 115 mm, while L11 with a slight modernization is still present on the Challenger 2
  10. Crang
    Crang 21 July 2013 13: 54
    0
    Quote: Kars
    I always thought that 120 mm is more than 115 mm, while L11 with a slight modernization is still present on the Challenger 2

    More, but not more effective. The newest 62mm smoothbore cannon 115A2 "Molot" was installed in the T-20, which fired BOPSs with an initial speed of 1615-1650m / s (the heavier 122mm BOPS ZBM-11 tank T-10M left 122mm NP 2A17 with Vn = 1630m / s). The British used the EMNIP L120 rifled 11mm cannon. The initial speed of BOPS is 1500m / s. Its plus in front of a smoothbore (like the T-10M) is the high accuracy of fire.
    1. Kars
      Kars 21 July 2013 15: 36
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      The newest 62mm smoothbore cannon 115A2 "Molo" was installed in the T-20

      L11 was probably the oldest?
      Quote: Krang
      122mm BOPS ZBM-11 of the T-10M tank

      ВБМ4 3БМ11 7,4 320/0 (110/60)

      Well, here you can really see that Chieftain does not in any way affect Soviet tank construction.
      1. Crang
        Crang 21 July 2013 17: 02
        0
        You have provided incorrect data. The sub-caliber projectile ZBM-11 of the T-10M tank with 1000m penetrated 354mm of homogeneous armor along the normal and 140mm at an angle of 60 degrees. At a distance of 2000m - 308mm and 115mm respectively. In principle, the usual caliber BS of the BR-471D type took the Chieftain head-on, but the question is from what distances. Well, for a snack, 10 had cumulative ammunition ZBK-9. Hit 400mm armor regardless of range. And here the lack of GP versus NP affected - it was much easier to design a powerful cumulative projectile under NP. And this turned out to be decisive in the era of general "cumulivitization" (only then BOPS came out on top). HEAT shells even with 115mm cannons hit more armor than a 122mm T-10M cannon can. Well, with 125mm, you can't even compare. Although the muzzle energy of the 122mm cannon 2A17 of the T-10M tank is superior to the 125mm cannon 2A46.
        1. Crang
          Crang 21 July 2013 17: 30
          0
          Mistaken - lack of NP against GP
        2. Kars
          Kars 21 July 2013 18: 23
          +1
          Quote: Krang
          You have entered incorrect data

          Me? And how do you prove it?
          Quote: Krang
          In principle, the usual caliber BS of the BR-471D type took the Chieftain head-on, but the question is from what distances.

          Well, yes, the T-34-76 say they also took the Tiger in the forehead, only looking at what distance.
          Quote: Krang
          Well, for a snack, the 10s had cumulative ammunition ZBK-9

          Really? And this is not written in part of the text that I cited?
          Quote: Krang
          Mistaken - lack of NP against GP

          A decrypt?
          1. Crang
            Crang 21 July 2013 18: 30
            0
            Quote: Kars
            Me? And how do you prove it?

            Prove you first.
      2. Yemelya
        Yemelya 21 July 2013 19: 16
        0
        Quote: Kars
        Well, here you can really see that Chieftain does not in any way affect Soviet tank construction.


        NATO tanks with 120-mm cannons and powerful armor were already in the mid-1950s - the M-103 and the Conqueror. Rivals worthy of them in the USSR were developed by the end of the 1950s - ob. 277 and ob. 770 with 130-mm cannons.

        I think for the new Soviet heavy. tanks, in the case of their mass production (often read that the rejection of them was purely subjective) "Chieftain" would not become a problem.
        1. Crang
          Crang 21 July 2013 19: 38
          0
          It was not a problem for the old ones either. Moreover, worthy opponents for the Chieftain from the USSR appeared earlier than himself.
          1. Yemelya
            Yemelya 21 July 2013 22: 03
            0
            Quote: Krang
            It was not a problem for the old ones either. Moreover, worthy opponents for the Chieftain from the USSR appeared earlier than himself.


            The Chieftain is certainly not a masterpiece. Horstman's suspension alone is worth something ... and also problems with the reliability of the power plant.

            But for guaranteed superiority, a new tank was needed.
            And he was. It is about. 770.

            I have not seen any negative mention of him. It was possible to establish mass production in the first half of the 1960s and not bother with the T-64. Before the appearance of the 3rd generation tanks at NATO, paired with the T-62 / T-72 (or vol. 167) it would provide parity or even superiority.
            1. Kars
              Kars 21 July 2013 22: 20
              +1
              Quote: Emelya
              . Before the appearance of the 3rd generation tanks at NATO, paired with the T-62 / T-72 (or vol. 167) it would provide parity or even superiority.

              One snag without the T-64, T-72 could not appear.
              1. Kars
                Kars 21 July 2013 22: 26
                +1
                _________________
                1. Yemelya
                  Yemelya 21 July 2013 22: 43
                  0
                  Everyone knows the history of the T-72.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 21 July 2013 22: 48
                    +1
                    Quote: Emelya
                    Everyone knows the history of the T-72.

                    Does not look like it.
        2. Kars
          Kars 21 July 2013 20: 31
          +1
          Quote: Emelya
          NATO tanks with 120-mm cannons and powerful armor were already in the mid-1950s - the M-103 and the Conqueror. Rivals worthy of them in the USSR were developed by the end of the 1950s - ob. 277 and ob. 770 with 130-mm cannons.


          They went to the series? And Conkeror and M-103 are also very not massive tanks.
          Quote: Emelya
          The rivals worthy of him in the USSR were developed by the end of the 1950s - vol. 277 and vol. 770 with 130-mm guns.

          Their winner was made back in 1947-48 and it was an IS-7
          1. Yemelya
            Yemelya 21 July 2013 22: 09
            0
            Quote: Kars
            Did they go to the series?

            As you know, no.


            Quote: Kars
            Their winner was made back in 1947-48 and it was an IS-7


            The military did not like it.
            Yes, and industrialists, I think, too.
            T-10 at that time is the best option.
            1. Kars
              Kars 21 July 2013 22: 18
              +1
              Quote: Emelya
              As you know, no.

              Wow.

              Quote: Emelya
              The military did not like it.

              This is debatable, especially considering the improvement process.

              Quote: Emelya
              Yes, and industrialists, I think, too.

              even more controversial.
              Quote: Emelya
              T-10 at that time is the best option.

              The T-10 is a tank built under a 50 ton lemite, the justification of which is also debatable.
              1. Crang
                Crang 21 July 2013 22: 33
                +2
                Quote: Kars
                The T-10 is a tank built under a 50 ton lemite, the justification of which is also debatable.

                T-10 is an absolute hit on the spot (taking into account subsequent upgrades). But the IS-7 is an unsuitable monster of the same Merkava-4 type.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 21 July 2013 22: 53
                  +2
                  Quote: Krang
                  T-10 is an absolute hit on the spot (taking into account subsequent upgrades)

                  No, it's just a heavy tank squeezed by lemites.

                  Quote: Krang
                  here is the IS-7 - an unsuitable monster like the same "Merkava-4".

                  But the IS-7 is a MBT that was built in the USSR in 1950. And then, by improving medium tanks, they will reach the IS-7 level in the 80s, and it’s especially in armature if it weighs 60 tons.

                  The IS-7 is an absolutely modern tank. Considering the progress in armor and electronics.
                  1. Crang
                    Crang 21 July 2013 23: 17
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    But the IS-7 is a MBT which was built in the USSR in 1950.

                    IS-7 - MBT 50s? With 200mm frontal armor? The same T-10M had 250mm. Karoche I saw the IS-7 and T-10M next to each other. They are the same in size. Only the T-10M has a reserve for attaching combined armor modules, while the IS-7 does not have this reserve.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 21 July 2013 23: 22
                      +1
                      Quote: Krang
                      IS-7 - MBT 50s?

                      Yes

                      Quote: Krang
                      With 200mm frontal armor? The same T-10M had 250mm.

                      And? 50 mm in 10 years is about the same as the T-90A compared to the T-80U, only 20 years there.
                      Quote: Krang
                      only the T-10M has a reserve for attaching modules of combined armor, but the IS-7 does not have this reserve.

                      How did you define this? How can you prove it? By not saying that the IS-7 was in the process of improvement, and it is still unknown what it would be after the serial production process.
              2. Yemelya
                Yemelya 21 July 2013 22: 39
                0
                [quote = Kars]
                Quote: Emelya
                The military did not like it.
                This is debatable, especially considering the improvement process.

                Quote: Emelya
                Yes, and industrialists, I think, too.
                even more controversial.

                What was the catch then? request
                1. Kars
                  Kars 21 July 2013 22: 56
                  +1
                  Quote: Emelya
                  What was the catch then?

                  Do you need it? My version?

                  I’ll just say the IS-7 weighed like your favorite Kingtiger
                  1. Yemelya
                    Yemelya 21 July 2013 23: 05
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    Do you need it? My version?


                    If it `s not a secret.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 21 July 2013 23: 10
                      +1
                      Quote: Emelya
                      If it `s not a secret.

                      this is not an answer to
                      Quote: Kars
                      Do you need it?
                      1. Yemelya
                        Yemelya 21 July 2013 23: 12
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        this is not an answer to
                        Quote: Kars
                        Do you need it?


                        That's interesting.
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 21 July 2013 23: 16
                        +1
                        Well, do not, then do not.

                        this article was created under my influence, at least insistence
                        http://topwar.ru/18082-tyazhelee-nekuda-is-7.html
                      3. Yemelya
                        Yemelya 21 July 2013 23: 30
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, do not, then do not.


                        Why didn’t I understand who, if not the military and industrialists, were against the IS-7? request
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 21 July 2013 23: 33
                        +1
                        Quote: Emelya
                        Why didn’t I understand who, if not the military and industrialists, were against the IS-7?

                        Do not understand, then do not understand.
                      5. Yemelya
                        Yemelya 21 July 2013 23: 39
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Do not understand, then do not understand.

                        All clear. Esoteric armored knowledge. The uninitiated do not understand.

                        IS-7 ruined Totchiyoymyan not pronounce, probably.
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 21 July 2013 23: 41
                        +1
                        Quote: Emelya
                        All clear. Esoteric armored knowledge. The uninitiated do not understand.

                        IS-7 ruined Totchiyoymyan not pronounce, probably.


                        Do you know why to ask?

                        I will give one excerpt

                        But, despite a number of criticisms, in 1949 the military issued an order to the Kirov plant for the production of a batch of 50 tanks. For unclear reasons, this order was not fulfilled. The Main Armored Directorate blamed the plant, which, in its opinion, in every possible way delayed the manufacture of equipment and devices necessary for mass production. The factory workers referred to the military, who "hacked to death" the car, demanding to reduce the weight to 50 tons. Only one thing is known for certain - none of the 50 ordered tanks left the workshops of the plant.

                        The heavy tank IS-7, without exaggeration, can be considered a masterpiece of Soviet heavy tank building. He had no equal in the world in terms of the aggregate of the main combat indicators. With a combat weight similar to that of the "King Tiger", the IS-7 significantly surpassed this one of the strongest and heaviest serial tanks of the Second World War, created only two years earlier, both in terms of armor protection and weapons. It remains only to regret that the production of this unique combat vehicle was never deployed.

  • Crang
    Crang 21 July 2013 18: 30
    0
    Quote: Kars
    A decrypt?

    NP - rifled gun.
    GP - smoothbore gun.
    It’s time to know.
    Quote: Kars
    Well, yes, the T-34-76 say they also took the Tiger in the forehead, only looking at what distance.

    Only godfather. And sabot calibers (of which there were very few) absolutely point-blank. I did not take the usual BS from any distance. So it’s just right to say that the T-34-76 in the forehead of the "Tiger" could not fill up. The T-10M used conventional calibers to take the Chieftain head-on at a distance of several hundred meters. The truth is already less than the steep stabilized (independently) amortized sight T2S-29-14 allowed him.
    1. Kars
      Kars 21 July 2013 18: 42
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      Only a godmother. And the sub-calibers (of whom there were very few) were completely point blank

      Well, you discovered America)) And what the heck to a F-34?
      Quote: Krang
      NP - rifled gun.
      GP - smoothbore gun.
      It’s time to know.

      Well, I don’t recognize you and your wild illogicality - the GP may well be horizontal flatness)) so when you get smart and still make mistakes, it becomes embarrassing and decrypts.
      Quote: Krang
      Prove you first.

      http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%D0%9017

      can you do better
      ↑ Shirokorad A.B., Super-guns for super-tanks
      ↑ Shirokorad A.B., Postwar self-propelled guns
      ↑ M.V. Pavlov, I.V. Pavlov. Domestic armored vehicles 1945-1965 // Equipment and weapons: yesterday, today, tomorrow. - Moscow: Techinform, 2008. - No. 9. - P. 48.
      ↑ Description of the device of the 122 mm “M-62T2” tank gun stabilized in two planes, p. 265, 266
      ↑ M.V. Pavlov, I.V. Pavlov. Domestic armored vehicles 1945-1965 // Equipment and weapons: yesterday, today, tomorrow. - Moscow: Techinform, 2008. - No. 9. - P. 55,56.
      Footnotes [edit]
      ↑ Penetration for sub-caliber shells is indicated when exposed to homogeneous steel armor at a range of 2000 m
      Literature [edit]

      Description of the device 122-mm stabilized in two planes tank gun "M-62T2". - Molotov: Special Design Bureau No. 172 (SKB-172), 1957.
      Shirokorad A. B. Super-guns for super tanks // Not the last spoke in a chariot / Ed. L. S. Sadyrova. - Perm: Studio Zebra LLC, 2011. - T. 2. - 500 copies.
      Shirokorad A. B. Post-war self-propelled guns // Self-propelled guns.
      M.V. Pavlov, I.V. Pavlov. Domestic armored vehicles 1945-1965 // Equipment and weapons: yesterday, today, tomorrow. - Moscow: Techinform, 2008. - No. 9. - P. 46.
  • Crang
    Crang 21 July 2013 19: 06
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    can you do better

    Wikipedia drunks write Kars. Certainly can:
    http://www.popmech.ru/blogs/post/585-povozka-dlya-pushki-ognevaya-mosch-tyazhely
    ih-tankov-poslevoennogo-perioda /
    Quote: Kars
    Well, I don’t know you and your wild illogicality

    You’re wildly illogical. Sometimes I think that I argue with a woman, although I understand that in front of me is a demagogue (fat).
    Quote: Kars
    Well, you discovered America)) And what the heck to a F-34?

    For example, BP-350M. But I don’t blame you for ignorance. There were very few of them and you could well not know about them.
    1. Kars
      Kars 21 July 2013 20: 27
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      http://www.popmech.ru/blogs/post/585-povozka-dlya-pushki-ognevaya-mosch-tyazhely

      ih-tankov-poslevoennogo-perioda /


      And who is the author there?

      Tungs10 but with this clown when he was here, he showed up, they were embarrassed from the heart.
      Quote: Krang
      You’re wildly illogical. Sometimes I think that I argue with a woman, although I understand that in front of me is a demagogue (fat).


      Probably from long abstinence everywhere women seem to be? And what is demogogy?
      Quote: Krang
      For example, BP-350M.

      Provide a link, the date of putting into service, armor penetration.
      Again somewhere in the popular mechanics? Or in the world of tanks?

      AMMUNITION FOR 76,2-MM F-34, ZIS-5 AND S-54 GUNS SHOT CHARGED
      Index Weight, kg Index Weight, kg Length, klb Weight of explosives, g Fuse Index Weight, kg
      Shrapnel, high-explosive
      UOF-354M 8.82 OF-350 6.2 4 0.71 KTM-1, KTM-3 54-G-354 1.08
      UOF-354B 8.82 OF-350B 6.2 4 0.64 KTM-1, KTM-3, MG-N, KTMZ-U-G-1 354
      UO-354AM 8.83 O-350A 6.21 4 0.54 KTM-1 54-G-354 1.08
      UV-354 8.52 F-350 6.41 4 0.785 KT3, KTM-3, 3GT G-354A 0.9
      UV-354M 8.52 F-350M 6.1 4 0.815 KTM-3 G-354A 0.9
      UV-354F 8.85 F-350F 6.41 4 0.785 HELL, AD-2, ADM G-354A 0.9
      Armor-piercing caliber
      UBR-354A 9.12 BR-350A 6.3 4.2 0.15 (TNT) MD-5 54-G-354 1.08
      UBR-354B 9.1 BR-350B 6.3 4.2 0.155 (TNT) MD-8 54-G-354 1.08
      UBR-354SP 9.2 BR-350SP 6.6 2.3 no no 54-G-354 1.08
      Armor-piercing subcaliber
      UBR-354P 6.3 BR-350P 3.02 2.4 no no 54-G-354P 1.08
      UBR-354N * 6 BR-350N * 3.02 2.4 no no 54-G-354N 1.4
      ARMOR RESISTANT
      no
      CARTOON AND SHAPPEL
      USCH-354 8.94 Щ-354 6.5 3 0.085 22 sec., D 54-G-354A 0.9
      USCH-354T 9.1 Щ-354T 6.66 3 0.085 T-6 54-Г-354A 0.9
      USCH-354G 9.02 SH-354G (Harz) 6.58 3.9 0.085 22PG 54-G-354A 0.9
      Incendiary
      UZ-354 8.86 Z-35O ** 6.24 3.3 0.24 T-6 54-G-354 1.08
      UZ-354С 8.86 Z-350С 4.65 3 0.24 22 sec 54-Г-354A 1.08
      SMOKE
      UD-350 9.12 D-350 ** 6.45 4 - KTM-2 54-G-354 1.08
      UD-354A 9.12 D-350A 6.45 4 - KTM-1 54-G-354 1.08
      http://www.battlefield.ru/f34/stranitsa-2.html
      Quote: Krang
      For example, BP-350M

      There are references to BP-353A
      Cumulative (in the terminology of the war period - armor-burning) shells were of two types - steel BP-350M (armor penetration up to 100 mm) and BP-353A steel cast iron (armor penetration about 70 mm).

      But something in the BC T-34-76 is invisible, and even up to 100 mm it is less than 100
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 21 July 2013 20: 52
        +1
        Quote: Kars
        Provide a link, the date of putting into service, armor penetration.


        This is most likely one very interesting shell. Which were forbidden to shoot from the ZIS-3, tank and Su-76 guns. Look for him in the regimental, not divisional, cannon.
        There seemed to have been shell explosions in the barrel.

        As far as I remember what the teacher told us, they tried to increase armor penetration by increasing the power of the explosives, but they moved too much, and therefore the shell detonated from relatively high accelerations even in ZiS-3. Only a short barrel regimental submission.
        1. Kars
          Kars 21 July 2013 21: 01
          +2
          Quote: Spade
          Which were forbidden to shoot from the ZIS-3, tank and gun Su-76

          then it’s not very suitable for the topic of the question. And if I remember all the experiments)) I don’t know all the HF variations for memory, but here are the shells.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 21 July 2013 21: 05
            +1
            He does not fit at all. They just went the dangerous way
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Crang
            Crang 21 July 2013 23: 20
            -1
            Quote: Kars
            If you do not prove it, you will, at least why you will be e without any question marks.

            Or maybe you're Kars? You look more like a fuck than me. My words are an axiom for you - remember this. You must prove it to Kars.
            1. Kars
              Kars 21 July 2013 23: 28
              +2
              Quote: Krang
              Or maybe you're Kars?

              I have already proven
              Quote: Kars
              AMMUNITION FOR 76,2-MM F-34, ZIS-5 AND S-54 GUNS SHOT CHARGED
              Index Weight, kg Index Weight, kg Length, klb Weight of explosives, g Fuse Index Weight, kg
              Shrapnel, high-explosive
              UOF-354M 8.82 OF-350 6.2 4 0.71 KTM-1, KTM-3 54-G-354 1.08
              UOF-354B 8.82 OF-350B 6.2 4 0.64 KTM-1, KTM-3, MG-N, KTMZ-U-G-1 354
              UO-354AM 8.83 O-350A 6.21 4 0.54 KTM-1 54-G-354 1.08
              UV-354 8.52 F-350 6.41 4 0.785 KT3, KTM-3, 3GT G-354A 0.9
              UV-354M 8.52 F-350M 6.1 4 0.815 KTM-3 G-354A 0.9
              UV-354F 8.85 F-350F 6.41 4 0.785 HELL, AD-2, ADM G-354A 0.9
              Armor-piercing caliber
              UBR-354A 9.12 BR-350A 6.3 4.2 0.15 (TNT) MD-5 54-G-354 1.08
              UBR-354B 9.1 BR-350B 6.3 4.2 0.155 (TNT) MD-8 54-G-354 1.08
              UBR-354SP 9.2 BR-350SP 6.6 2.3 no no 54-G-354 1.08
              Armor-piercing subcaliber
              UBR-354P 6.3 BR-350P 3.02 2.4 no no 54-G-354P 1.08
              UBR-354N * 6 BR-350N * 3.02 2.4 no no 54-G-354N 1.4
              ARMOR RESISTANT
              no
              CARTOON AND SHAPPEL
              USCH-354 8.94 Щ-354 6.5 3 0.085 22 sec., D 54-G-354A 0.9
              USCH-354T 9.1 Щ-354T 6.66 3 0.085 T-6 54-Г-354A 0.9
              USCH-354G 9.02 SH-354G (Harz) 6.58 3.9 0.085 22PG 54-G-354A 0.9
              Incendiary
              UZ-354 8.86 Z-35O ** 6.24 3.3 0.24 T-6 54-G-354 1.08
              UZ-354С 8.86 Z-350С 4.65 3 0.24 22 sec 54-Г-354A 1.08
              SMOKE
              UD-350 9.12 D-350 ** 6.45 4 - KTM-2 54-G-354 1.08
              UD-354A 9.12 D-350A 6.45 4 - KTM-1 54-G-354 1.08
              http://www.battlefield.ru/f34/stranitsa-2.html

              Quote: Krang
              You look more like a fuck than me
              Are you claiming to know the topic?


              Quote: Krang
              My words are an axiom for you - remember this. You must prove it to Kars.
              Yes, you)))))
              Quote: Krang
              And such a storm of emotions and zero facts)))

              The facts are still zero))

              so ))))