Military Review

Armata should return to the unitary shell

37
In numerous publications on promising tank "Armata" strangely avoids the question of the type of shot of the future tank. The author back in 2006 (NVO, 2006, No. 18) expressed the opinion that the decision adopted in 1962 to transfer the new 125-mm tank gun to separate shell loading was erroneous. It led to a decrease in rate of fire, a decrease in crew safety, and a significant complication of the design of the autoloader. None of the world's tank manufacturers have taken this path. All retained unitary loading.


The first domestic T-62 tank with a smooth-bore gun (115-mm gun 2А20 / У5-TS "Molot") had a unit of ammunition from unitary cartridges. Its chief designer Leonid Kartsev remained a staunch supporter of unitary loading. In 1961, the developer of the gun OKB-9 (Yekaterinburg) defended the idea of ​​a separate shot. Leonid Kartsev sharply objected to this and insisted on the use of a unitary cartridge. The idea of ​​OKB-9 was supported by a representative of SRI-24 (now THEM). However, there was a sharp disagreement on the issue at NII-24.

The main idea of ​​supporters of separate-sleeve loading was that splitting the shot into two short parts would allow using a fundamentally new carousel scheme of the automatic loader with its location on the floor of the tank and the location of the parts of the shot over each other. It was assumed that the ammunition set hidden in the depth of the tank would be reliably protected from the effects of enemy fire. These hopes were not justified in the future.

It should immediately be noted that the idea of ​​placing the ammunition or its main part in the same compartment with the crew always seemed to be sharply debated.

DID NOT foresee the main

The main mistake was in the other. Proponents of separate loading could not foresee the development trend of armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells (BOPS), consisting in the continuous increase in their length. Over the years, the length of the BOPS has grown steadily. At present, the Abrams М1А2 120-mm tank shot М829А3 with a projectile length 924 mm has been adopted in the USA. Its armor-piercing core made of alloy using depleted uranium has a ratio of length to diameter 37. The shot is considered one of the most effective shots with BOPS.

Shells of this length under no circumstances can be placed in the carousel machine. Under these conditions, the unitary cartridge is a natural and logical way out, providing the most compact placement of ammunition in the tank. At the same time, the length of the unitary shot only slightly exceeds the length of the projectile: the ratio of the lengths of 982 / 984 = 1,06. Increasing the length of the projectile will have a beneficial effect on the improvement of caliber tank shells, primarily cumulative, high-explosive and promising frag-beam.

In domestic tank shells, stabilization with large-span nadkalibernymi feathers, which fall out after the departure of the projectile from the bore, is used. This is due to the need to remove feathers beyond the boundaries of the bottom perturbed zone. This significantly increases the aerodynamic resistance to the movement of the projectile. With a large projectile length, on the one hand, it is possible to create a conical transitional compartment from the body to the stabilizer tube, and on the other hand, to bring the feathers into the unperturbed zone, which will reduce their span and, as a result, reduce the aerodynamic resistance to the movement of the projectile. This scheme is implemented in the construction of 120-mm fragmentation-cumulative anti-helicopter tank projectile M830A1 USA.

Along with the above, there are a number of advantages:
- due to the transition from a push-pull charging circuit to a single-stroke one, the duration of the loading cycle is reduced (by approximately 1,5 seconds);
- provides a fixed mutual position of the projectile and the powder charge when loading, including when the barrel is worn out, which eliminates the scatter of the conditions of charge combustion at the initial moment of the shot. At the same time, it should be noted that supporters of separate loading believe that a more significant factor in this loading is the constancy of the “biting” of the projectile in the input cone of the barrel, ensuring the stability of its initial speed;
- it is possible to extract the projectile from the barrel in case of failure or cancellation of the shot. When loading separately, discharging can be performed only by a shot, which is not always permissible under the conditions of the combat situation;
- for promising high-explosive shells with a bottom trajectory fuse, it is possible to contact the temporary installation into the fuse after loading and closing the shutter along the path: electrical contact of the shutter - electrical contact of the bottom of the sleeve - cable along the axis of the sleeve - bottom fuse. The scheme is protected by MGTU patent number 2 368 861 "Ostashkov" and implemented in the 120-mm tank fragmentation-beam shells DM11 (the company "Rheinmetall" Germany).

The main objections to the unitary tank cartridge are associated with its long length, which makes it difficult to operate with it in a close fighting compartment, and an unacceptably large mass of a unitary shot. As we saw earlier, with modern long BOPS, the length of the shot only slightly (by 6%) exceeds the length of BOPS. It turns out to be insignificant and the second objection. Here are the mass characteristics of regular 125-mm separate-cartridge shots:
fragmentation-beam projectile 3VOF22 - weight 33,0 kg;
cumulative projectile 3BBK73 - 28,5 kg;
Armored piercing pierced piercing projectile 3BBM13 - 20,4 kg.
The mass of a heavier unitary shot with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile is 33 – 35 kg, which does not exceed the allowable load for manual operations with a shot.

Armata should return to the unitary shellIn general, the expediency of the transition (return) of domestic tank guns to a unitary cartridge seems quite obvious. Today, the only serious argument in favor of the principle of maintaining separate loading is the possibility of switching to the caliber 140 mm. Development is underway in all countries (XM291ATAC, USA; NPzK-140, Germany; L55 “Bagheera”, Ukraine, etc.). When switching to this caliber, the mass of the shot with the RP-projectile will be 33 (140 / 25) ^ 3 = 46,3 kg and the transition to separate loading will become almost inevitable. We give the characteristics of 140-mm tank gun L55 "Bagheera":
- Maximum pressure in the barrel - 564 MPa
- muzzle velocity - 1870 m / s
- flight weight BOPS - 7 kg
- muzzle kinetic energy - 15,7 MJ.
The gun is supposed to be mounted on the T-84 “Oplot” tank.

NEW CHARGING AUTOMATIC REQUIRED

The transition to a unitary cartridge almost uniquely determines the placement of the automatic loader in the aft compartment (chase) of the turret, that is, exactly what is used in most modern foreign tanks. Currently, the turret-mounted automatic loader is used in Leclerc tanks (France), Tip-90 (Japan), K-2 Black Panther (South Korea). The machine is also used in an experienced Ukrainian tank "Yatagan". In all cases, a scheme with a closed belt-type conveyor located across the axis of the tower is used.

In the Leclerc tank, equipped with a 120-mm smoothbore CN120-26 gun of 52 caliber length, the ammunition kit contains 40 unitary cartridges, of which 22 are in the automatic loader tower, 18 - in a rotating drum located in the case to the right of the mechanic-loader, As shots are used up in the machine gunner can replenish it from the drum. Automation is able to provide a technical rate of fire (excluding aiming and aiming) up to 15 rounds per minute, which gives the 10 – 12 effective rate of fire per minute both from the spot and in motion.

It should be noted that stacking shots in the pursuit of the tower can be applied to tanks that do not have an automatic loader. In the Abrams tank М1А1, USA, the laying of shots (34 units) is separated from the crew compartment by a mobile armored partition.

The main disadvantage of the machine in the pursuit of the tower is its increased vulnerability. The aft compartment is poorly armored, so when small-caliber shells hit it, large fragments and even large-caliber armor-piercing bullets can cause ignition and explosion of ammunition. To protect against the effects of the feed compartment is equipped with expelling panels that ensure the release of burning ammunition outside. As a result of the wars in the Persian Gulf and in other places, cases of explosions of ammunition in the feeding areas of the Abrams tank are described. In all cases, the crew was not injured.

When deciding on the choice of the type of machine, it should be noted that in recent years there has been a significant reassessment of the merits of the floor-carousel machine adopted in domestic tanks. He was far from being as safe as it seemed to his author. Revealed at least three real possibilities of ignition ammunition:
- defeat of the side of the tank with a cumulative RPG grenade. In regional conflicts in urban combat, the enemy, who knew the tank design well, fired an RPG-7 hand-held grenade launcher on its board into the area of ​​the carousel, as far as possible into the space between the rollers. The cumulative jet penetrating through the relatively thin side armor easily ignited the burning shells, which led to the catastrophic death of the tank with the crew;
- penetration of the bottom of the tank from the bottom when hitting a cumulative antidischestvennoy engineering mine;
- breaking through the relatively thin roof of the tank with the shock core of the sub-equipment of a SADARM type cluster artillery projectile or a cumulative jet of a XM120 X-mm 943 tank shell with a vertical jet penetration into the fighting compartment down to the tank floor.

WHAT TO DO?

It is clear that the conversion of a huge number of T-72, T-80, T-90 tanks to a unitary cartridge and a new automatic loader is unrealistic. Need a bold decision. It will consist in the fact that with a unitary patron only the Armata tank will be produced. Thus, it will be necessary to allow the simultaneous existence of two different competitive types of tank shots. In the end, life itself will put tough assessments of these species. At the same time, the new capabilities of this tank will become clear.

Personally, I have no doubt that a unitary cartridge will win. Its benefits are too great. The convergence of technical solutions is an objective and unavoidable process. The laws of physics are the same all over the world. The decision on separate loading was wrong. It would sooner or later lead to a dead end.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ramsi
    ramsi 26 November 2013 08: 38
    +2
    in an uninhabited tower there is no advantage for a unitary projectile, except, perhaps, for a two-link AZ with a drum instead of a shutter
    1. alone
      alone 26 November 2013 19: 42
      0
      We should consult with Rogozin about this. He is an intelligent specialist in the affairs of Almaty.
      laughing
  2. 31231
    31231 26 November 2013 08: 44
    +9
    All these speculations in Armata are fed up with the order.
    1. tank 34
      tank 34 26 November 2013 14: 29
      +3
      Armata is unlikely to appear in the near future. If you already followed the path of Almaty, it would be nice to start with raising the t-74 project in the archive.
  3. bootlegger
    bootlegger 26 November 2013 09: 05
    +1
    Even if this is so, then what prevents the combined scheme from being used in a used but modified AZ?
    BOPS is stored and charged unitarily, and the remaining types of ammunition separately?
    AZ will work, in this case, according to the shortened version.
    And in old AZs, you can apply the scheme when the BOPS charge is divided into two parts.
    The first will fall into the barrel with the BOPS itself, and the second additional one, already when the main charge is added.
    1. ramsi
      ramsi 26 November 2013 09: 23
      0
      I absolutely agree ... Well, how much BOPS will be required in a real battle - 3-5 maximum. But the main projectile (RP) is much more powerful
    2. Hudo
      Hudo 26 November 2013 10: 19
      +1
      Quote: bootlegger
      And in old AZs, you can apply the scheme when the BOPS charge is divided into two parts.
      The first will fall into the barrel with the BOPS itself, and the second additional one, already when the main charge is added.


      In this case, you will need to solve some very difficult issues. So a little offhand:
      * when docking the two parts of the BFPS, there is an inevitable backlash in the connection, vibration, beating, misalignment, which will have a dire effect on the accuracy of the battle.
      * Will the docking unit of the BOPS components withstand the enormous loads about the shot?
      * Is it necessary to make marks on the lateral surfaces of the components, only if they can be joined on both parts, and rotate around the longitudinal axis to achieve alignment during loading (and also fix so that the marks are not coordinated when moving)?
      Something like that.
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 26 November 2013 10: 55
        +1
        you are right, there will be problems: backlash can be avoided, probably, only with the help of a thread, i.e. you have to do it manually; however, if you dock with a "poke" (for example, the entry of the rear part rod with two tapered stops, a centimeter thick and 5-6 cm long through two spring washers split along the inner diameter and maximally spaced in their sockets of the "receiving part", then some backlash possible ... but in flight, the front part rather pulls the rear, and the centering in the barrel is set by the master ... Well, fig knows it, I would try
        1. Hudo
          Hudo 26 November 2013 11: 14
          0
          Quote: ramsi
          then some backlash is possible ...


          You imagine how small tolerances should be in order to minimize their influence, which can be neglected!

          Quote: ramsi
          Well, FIG knows, would try


          It is undoubtedly necessary to try, design, analyze the results, but for some reason it seems to me that the game is not worth the candle. Just imagine that sand got into the docking unit, a piece of paper from a torn pack of cartridges (in general, similar "good" is everywhere in bulk - poor-quality docking, when fired, the BOPS split into its component parts and disfigured the bore of the gun, God knows where. Point. Drain the water!
          1. ramsi
            ramsi 26 November 2013 11: 50
            0
            undocking in the barrel should not lead to its damage, the leading parts will insure the rods from "skewing" and the rear part will simply push the front part, though the devil knows where ... Then all that remains is the manual threaded connection - I just don't see any other real way "cheap and angry "to tighten the characteristics of our BOPSs
      2. bootlegger
        bootlegger 26 November 2013 11: 46
        0
        You did not understand.
        I was not talking about a double combined BOPS, but about its double powder propellant charge. Two-part BOPS is really a little real idea.
        The first part of the charge is proposed to be placed approximately like a mortar mine. So that the BOPS would be located inside its charge, but the charge would not go beyond its main dimensions. That is, the charge was in the form of a block around the BOPS core. Additional charge will be supplied later.
        Initiation of the main charge, when fired, will occur from an additional one.
        In this case, the instability of the initial speed promises to be lower, since the bulk of the charge will be coupled with the BOPS in the factory. In addition, there remain the possibility of increasing the propellant charge due to separate charging.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. ramsi
          ramsi 26 November 2013 11: 53
          +1
          and what, isn’t it right now?
  4. EvilLion
    EvilLion 26 November 2013 09: 12
    +1
    How the charges ignite can be seen in the video from Syria. The question is a little different, but why should the AZ be in the niche of the tower? By itself, the AZ design can be any and I don't see any problems with creating a carousel AZ, or has the task of the form "grab an object and move it" become unsolvable for designers?
  5. ed65b
    ed65b 26 November 2013 09: 43
    +4
    And it will be as always. What is it and put it.
  6. svp67
    svp67 26 November 2013 10: 24
    +1
    Armata should return to the unitary shell
    I think it would be better if "Armata" did not return, but WAS CHANGED to LIQUID PROPELLANT ...
    1. Akim
      Akim 26 November 2013 10: 50
      +3
      Quote: svp67
      I think it would be better if "Armata" did not return, but WAS CHANGED to LIQUID PROPELLANT ...

      Really. Unitary shells and longer (and therefore heavier) cores are not needed. We need a new gun and propellants that accelerate the projectile not at 1,7-1,8 km / s, but up to 2-2,2 km / s.
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 26 November 2013 13: 48
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      it would be better if the "Armata" did not return, but WAS CHANGED to LIQUID PRODUCTIVE SUBSTANCES ...

      Strongly support.
      Iron and Steel Works, divided into two low-combustible fractions - this is the future.
      They sang a song about this to us at the end of the 80's, the beginning of the 90's, that there are groundwork on KAZ and ZhMV. The USSR was a leader in these matters.
      KAZ saw, there is no LMW. Information is extremely scarce.

      In Armata, it is more possible to modify the carousel conveyor to a larger caliber, reducing the number of cells and loading shells into it in the 2-3 series. And store iron ore separately in 2's fractions. What is not an option for an uninhabited fighting compartment?

      By article:
      I do not quite understand such authors: he already in the 2006 year (!!!, what a shrewd prediction of the past) explained about the errors of the 1962 decision of the year.
      Again he started a fashionable song about the Western approach of loading tank guns, and then became completely confused, agreeing to the inevitability of separate loading when switching to 140mm, while forgetting all his arguments.

      And what did he want to say with the article? Fashionably spoke about the "theme", drawing on material from the Internet?
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 26 November 2013 14: 12
        +1
        I apologize for my pessimism, but liquid propellants, the heavier "cast iron" of the rod are technologies where they have always been stronger, and this is the step that will always be easier for them to take. And an increase in the length of the rod is, in this case, an elementary constructive perfection, which is cheaper, but it matters more ...
        1. Akim
          Akim 26 November 2013 15: 09
          0
          Quote: ramsi
          And an increase in the length of the rod is, in this case, an elementary structural perfection, which is cheaper, but it matters more ...

          That's a moot point. That's definitely not about the cheapness. In countries where tanks have long been using unitary loading of a tank gun, it is possible. Countries such as Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, well, in general, where the "Soviet type" of the third generation tank is used - it is extremely expensive. And the American М829А3 is far from being an object to follow in this. German DM53 is both more powerful and faster. The core does not lose speed so much, and hence kinetic energy in flight. And with the length of the L-55 cannon, it carries a whole mJ more energy than with the length of the L-44.
          1. ramsi
            ramsi 26 November 2013 15: 56
            0
            well, I'll clarify again: modern BOPS have practically reached the limit in initial velocity in relation to the existing propellants, which means that a further increase in the projectile power is possible only by increasing the weight (and strength) of the "scrap", there are three ways - increasing the diameter, increasing the length, and using heavier metal. Increasing the diameter increases the loss of speed with distance, using heavier metal is an option, but a short arrow from a smoothbore gun will still be less accurate than a long one; the most optimal solution is to increase the length. (Although, probably, all these components also have some kind of optimum). As far as I understand, we solve this problem by increasing the powder charge and barrel length, but in the end we still lose in terms of speed loss with distance (and penetration), accuracy, and barrel survivability
            1. Akim
              Akim 26 November 2013 16: 47
              +1
              Quote: ramsi
              we solve this problem by increasing the powder charge and barrel length,

              That is yes. Although the length of the barrel does not increase much. As for the propellant - theoretically new BOPs + a new gun they can fly out with an initial speed of up to 2,5 km / s.
              As far as the length of the German tank gun is concerned, it is 6,6 m, for ours it is 6 m. The Vityaz has 6250 mm, but there is already a speed of 2030 m / s. Whose is longer?
              And with it, 3BM42U1 carries energies 2 mJ more than the long German.
              Here in a similar direction it is necessary to develop. Of course, a unitary projectile is better, because due to the obturation of the sleeve there is a lower consumption of initial energy, and not because of the length of the core. As for the re-equipment of our tank type with a feed AZ, the tests on the T-72-120 and RT-91-120 did not show advantages in either rate of fire or armor penetration. The shells themselves must be able to properly manufacture. This is like a VAZ or ZAZ. It seems we are doing everything right, but it turns out AS.
              1. ramsi
                ramsi 26 November 2013 17: 35
                0
                Akim, please, chew, well, or what do you think - what is the speed (and also the energy) increased (and not lost!)? We only have three or four cards, like a bad player. The barrel length of 6m seems excessive to me, and the barrel survivability is not high; I don’t understand about the obturation with a sleeve - everything is shuttered behind;
                1. Akim
                  Akim 26 November 2013 19: 21
                  +1
                  Quote: ramsi
                  Akim, please, chew, well, or what do you think - what increased (and not lost!) Speed,

                  The thing is in the charging chamber, in heat transfer, the density of the fit of the charge. The liner has always been better. This is back in the 19th century in practice, tested on guns.
                  And length is a subjective assessment. The French at Leclerci generally have a length of 52 calla. standardly. There were tests of a 120-mm gun with a length of 58 callas. Since there is no ejector, all the power of the powder gases is aimed at throwing. It was a very powerful weapon. The resource of the barrel is also conditional in understanding, since firing of ammunition of increased power does not always take place.
                  So the separate-shell loading on 125-mm guns has not yet outlived itself.
                  If the question poses a perspective of 20-30 years, it is necessary to understand the concept of future tanks.
                  But in any case, the law of conservation of energy has not been canceled. You know that a steel shot released from a railgun has tremendous power. And the penetration depth is measured in meters. .
                  The most childish example. If a fat man with a trolley hits you at a store, you will be pushed, but a 7-year-old kid on a children's bicycle can send you to the hospital.
                  1. ramsi
                    ramsi 26 November 2013 19: 41
                    +1
                    the example with guns is not entirely successful: there, for example, SPEL didn’t work, but here, BOPS, very much please ... Everything else is ordinary tricks, possible in BOTH options. The only fundamental difference remains - the length of the rod, although with a different design of the AZ, this can be solved
  7. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 26 November 2013 10: 40
    -4
    Quote: svp67
    Armata should return to the unitary shell
    I think it would be better if "Armata" did not return, but WAS CHANGED to LIQUID PROPELLANT ...

    PORTERS incapacitating the enemy’s manpower.
    1. svp67
      svp67 26 November 2013 10: 46
      0
      Quote: Dimon-chik-79
      PORTERS incapacitating the enemy’s manpower.

      No, this is the "garbage" that pushes and throws a shell from a cannon. The USSR was in a leading position in resolving these issues, and everything was completely solved already in today's Russia. You just need to carry out comprehensive military tests, and MONEY for the organization of production. ZhMV - allow to increase the ammunition load of a tank gun by almost 2 times, in the same volumes of the fighting compartment and more "flexibly" to fire the OFS ...
      1. Dimon-chik-79
        Dimon-chik-79 26 November 2013 13: 25
        +2
        Mmm. I assume that this is still unrealistic, judging by how we are re-equipping the army with new models of equipment. Creation of fundamentally new types of weapons and ammunition in view of modern realities that are not publicly visible while possible. Us now while only enough to modernize the tanks that were adopted in the 70s (and not entirely successful - budgetary) UNFORTUNATELY...
  8. Dmitry Zurn
    Dmitry Zurn 26 November 2013 12: 14
    +3
    Gentlemen, what are you discussing? The tank has not yet come out, and you already thought up a gun for him and are discussing it. In the same way, one can imagine that Almaty has a laser gun and a nuclear power plant (by the way in the USSR, there were plans to create such a tractor), and regarding the article you can find a bunch of minuses, both in a unitary type of ammunition and separately charged. They always find some kind of compromise. By the way, by the way, we can say that these two types are practically not inferior to each other. In terms of security, it is also quite controversial, both the pros and cons. For this, I would not make absolute conclusions. Sincerely.
  9. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 26 November 2013 13: 03
    +1
    But in general, it’s high time to isolate the ammunition safety from the tank crew, no matter what type of unitary or separate projectile. Syria, in my opinion, completely dispelled all doubts!


    And indeed, in most cases, breaking the side of the tank between the rollers led to detonation of the ammunition safety and the inevitable death of the entire crew. The country will set up the tanks arbitrarily; people cannot be returned. It is necessary to break this chain, detonation of shots and the death of the crew by reliable isolation of the squads. The first serious attempt has already been made in the form of t-95

    Let's see what "Armata" will show us
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 26 November 2013 13: 52
      +2
      Quote: Dimon-chik-79
      But in general, it’s high time to isolate the ammunition safety from the tank crew, no matter what type of unitary or separate projectile. Syria, in my opinion, completely dispelled all doubts!

      In general, it’s high time to stop turning the same video.
      There are NO identical explosions.
      So it’s possible to shy away from abrashka and leo and carrots.

      Of the hundreds of detonations of the (approximately) T-72 tank, the beards place 5-7 of successful videos on the Internet, which they twist in every way.
      Not correct.
      Respect the fallen.
    2. just exp
      just exp 26 November 2013 13: 58
      +3
      this is not T95, vol. 195 is more similar to HF (figuratively), and to video Omsk black eagle.
  10. understudy
    understudy 26 November 2013 13: 06
    +1
    Quote: EvilLion
    has the task of the form "grab an object and move it" become unsolvable for designers?

    Dimensions, of course, incomparable, but a clear example of an "automatic" for unitary shells - BMP-1.
    In general, everything must be "felt" and compared, both for rate of fire and survivability. Fashion in tank building is a good thing, but it should defend its right to life not at exhibitions, but under conditions of the most severe exploitation. It is trite, but true.
  11. tchoni
    tchoni 26 November 2013 14: 16
    +1
    Regarding Armata, the monitors are good and that makes it possible to get rid of the LARGE TOWER. So tower niches with AZs located in them are somewhat not for her.
    Regarding the unit shot: the issue of increasing the tank caliber did not arise today, but it matured a long time ago. as a result, Armata will either have a gun with a caliber larger than 125 mm in stock or provide for an upgrade option for it. So the size of the shot will be significant, which will require a fundamentally new AZ. - so the question is complex and ambiguous and most likely has no solution within the framework of the article.
    1. ramsi
      ramsi 26 November 2013 14: 35
      0
      it’s also not so simple, most likely you’ll have to leave the big tower, because the promising tank has a lot more to add (radars, detectors, improved protection against multi-angle attacks)
      1. Genry
        Genry 26 November 2013 16: 51
        0
        Radar is not needed, expensive thing, vulnerable and you can get a lot of "gifts" by "activity". And the tank is not a single vehicle on the field; it will get the situation from outside reconnaissance.
        Irradiation detectors and an active protection system are needed, they do not take up much space in the tower or can be located on the sides.
        1. ramsi
          ramsi 26 November 2013 17: 19
          0
          and KAZ and many, many shots being shot off, and smoke grenades hiding in all ranges, and shotgun traps, and MANPADS?
    2. The comment was deleted.
  12. kafa
    kafa 26 November 2013 14: 29
    +2
    My opinion is not to stagnate but to develop a new one.
    otherwise it turns out the new gun paradox for old ammunition. I understand them at one time for several wars, but time does not stand still hi I understand at one time there were works on the use of liquid propellants. but you can't sleep awakening can be bitter
    1. Genry
      Genry 26 November 2013 15: 15
      0
      Liquid ones, if they appear, will still be packaged, like powder ones.
      Although, they always tried the opposite, from liquid to make solid, dynamite is an example.
      1. kafa
        kafa 26 November 2013 15: 33
        0
        conceptually, the idea was in the case there is a container with a propellant, the dosage of which depends on the fire control system (firing range) and there are no packaging which makes sense otherwise!
        1. Genry
          Genry 26 November 2013 16: 22
          +3
          Where there is a dosage, there is a leak, greater or lesser.
          At the gas station, everything flows onto the asphalt. And in the tank, provide a drain hole? Wash, wipe?
  13. Manul
    Manul 26 November 2013 15: 09
    0
    It would be nice to develop an explosive mixture that would be activated only at the moment of loading ... Fantasy, but still .. It is somehow doubtful that the separation of the crew and the ammunition with full detonation will save people.
  14. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 26 November 2013 16: 57
    0
    Quote: Aleks tv
    There are NO identical explosions.
    So it’s possible to shy away from abrashka and leo and carrots.

    -only the consequences for the crews in most cases will be different, especially if the carrots shy away
    Quote: Aleks tv
    Of the hundreds of detonations of the (approximately) T-72 tank, the beards place 5-7 of successful videos on the Internet, which they twist in every way.

    - not the point, but the fact that the presence of ammunition in the same volume with the crew when the armor is pierced inevitably leads to detonation in most cases, and great luck, for example, the Syrian tank crews, if outdated anti-tank weapons are in the hands of the "bearded men". In other cases, modern products of domestic manufacturers leave almost no chance.
    The need for a new machine, which is fundamentally different from the tank that is currently in service (being modernized, in addition, in a "budget" version) has long been ripe! And I hope the country will not spare funds this time
    PS By the way, the final of the tank biathlon in general inspired sadness due to failures, and they carefully prepared for this event. The same indicator
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 26 November 2013 17: 47
      +1
      Quote: Dimon-chik-79
      finding ammunition in the same volume with the crew when the armor is pierced inevitably leads to detonation in most cases, and it is a great success, for example, of the Syrian tankers if outdated anti-tank weapons are in the hands of the "bearded men". In other cases, modern products of domestic manufacturers leave almost no chance.

      How I was breathed by beaten stamps from the Internet ......................
      This problem really exists, but not SO, as it is attributed.
      Have you ever been in a tank? Pody bearded drove in the tail and mane? Go and get blown up?
      Ali read articles and look at YouTube?

      Mulien has already laid out on the shelves how THIS happens, the last time he did it on November 12 on this site in the article: "T-72B3 ... what kind of animal is this. Part 2". I'm tired of it. If you want - flip through the comments, and then try to say something ON BUSINESS, and not other people's stamps.
  15. Storyteller
    Storyteller 26 November 2013 18: 56
    +2
    I agree with all the arguments of the author regarding a unitary shot. Its advantages far outweigh the individual disadvantages. But the conclusions regarding the carousel automatic loader, I would call rash. As you know, the layout of the "Armata" assumes an uninhabited tower and a crew in a separate armored capsule. Therefore, the ammunition in the carousel machine is initially better protected. tk when turning the tower, it is covered in front with an armored capsule, and behind it with an engine. It remains to cover the sides with aprons with a remote control, and on top of the tower to make knockout panels. How to protect the belly - I don't know. By the way, I drew in 3D the placement of unitary shots in the carousel drum. So, in a cylinder with a diameter of 2100 and a height of 850, 60 shots easily fit, however, the shells had to be tilted. But this tilt will simplify the loading mechanism and increase its speed.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 27 November 2013 17: 13
      0
      And what kind of shell was taken as the basis? how long is it?
  16. tchoni
    tchoni 27 November 2013 17: 11
    0
    Quote: Dimon-chik-79
    t m

    -only the consequences for the crews in most cases will be different, especially if the carrots shy away

    merkavka is not without sin. In some cases, it is not so easy to pick out the driver from it (at a certain angle of rotation of the tower). + BC there in ONE volume with the crew. And if you take an extra set - and the tank allows it - so it’s generally you sit on the shell and shield the booty.

    Abrash-the garbage. Part of the BC in the hull (in the photo of the fighting compartment, pay attention to the pencil cases around the perimeter of the tower), otherwise you can’t just push 40 pigs. If the BC is only in the aft niche (as on versions with a 105 mm gun, but there are almost none now), the shutter is closed — alive. No - aliluya! (this is for the case of an ammunition explosion). And the crew does not suffer with a closed bulkhead (in the sense of continuing to breathe), but only the carrier does not receive shell shock. And he can get out only in case the gun is either strictly straight or almost strictly aboard (and then you must try).

    And with regard to placing the ammunition on 72 deuces - this is how shells are mainly detonated not from the AZ conveyor (a jamb of 80 ki - there are shells vertically around the perimeter), but folded into an ammunition stack.
    If you charge only the AZ - torture him to undermine (behind the screen. Board and DZ)

    And for that matter, then in AZ 72 deuces, you can make embroidery panels: say down + by placing the AZ conveyor in an armored capsule.
  17. tchoni
    tchoni 28 November 2013 11: 13
    0
    Regarding the fact that bk in the abrams does not detonate [media = http: //my.mail.ru/video/bk/azomih/183/510.html]