Military Review

Armata: a chance to fix a long-term mistake

121

As far as one can judge from the numerous responses received by the author, an article on the problem of unitary shot to tank Armata (NVO, 2013, No. 43) attracted attention. On the Internet, all defense blogs reprinted it. The opinions expressed are very different, but the main conclusion remains: the problem deserves serious discussion.


We repeat once again: the transition of domestic tanks in the 1962 year to the shot of separate loading was an error. Nobody in the world has gone this way. All but us saved unitary shots.

It is appropriate to recall here that at about the same time in another form of the armed forces - the Russian navy - the exact opposite event occurred. The sailors clearly understood that there was no room for a separate shot during automatic loading, and transferred their 130-mm AK-130 shipboard installation to the A3-UZS-44 unitary cartridge. He became the heaviest and longest unitary patron of Russia. The mass of the shot (cartridge) is 52,8 kg, the length of the shot is 1364 mm, the mass of the projectile is 33,4 kg, the mass of pyroxylin gunpowder 15/7 PS is 10,5 kg, but it did not create any problems when working with it.

Somewhat later, the US Navy also switched to a unitary cartridge for the mass 127-mm naval gun Mk45. Unitary cartridges are also used in the Italian 127-mm 127 / 64 MCGS “OTO Melara” cannon and in the Swedish L / 120 “Bofors” 46-mm cannon.

The 1962 decision on split loading and the type of automatic loader was based on two unproven assumptions:

- tank shot can be divided into two equal parts along the length (projectile - propellant charge);

- the length of each part must not exceed 700 mm.

Any engineer had to intuitively feel the danger of the irreversibility of technical solutions arising from these assumptions. In the future, huge complications caused the restriction of the projectile in length. This began to be felt almost immediately, primarily in the development of new armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells (BOPS). The first 125-mm BOPS 3BM12, 3BM15, 3BM17 had a length of 550 – 570 mm and freely fit into the floor carousel automatic loader.

However, further lengths of BOPS began to grow progressively. Let us illustrate this with the example of 120-mm US tank for the Abrams tank: М829 - 670 mm, М829А1 - 830 mm, М829А2 - 850 mm, М829А3 - 924 mm. Projectiles of such length under no circumstances fit into the carousel.

An even heavier blow is the length limitation inflicted on tank-launched missile guided missiles (TUR). The role of these missiles in the tank ammunition is increasing rapidly. In addition to the main task - the defeat of the tank in the line of sight - they are assigned the task of destroying enemy tanks on the approach to the battlefield at distances up to 8 km and the task of combating anti-tank helicopters. In the latter case, the TUR should be equipped with a fragmentation or fragmentation-beam warhead.

ROUND must be near-sonic or supersonic with a length of at least 8 caliber (for a standard Russian caliber 125 mm, the length of the rocket must be at least 1000 mm). Instead of quickly translate with the caliber 115 mm 125UBK3-10 «Sheksna» caliber 2 mm wonderful unitary shot for the T-62 with 9M117 missile having excellent characteristics: firing range 100-4000 m, average speed - 370 m / s, flight time to the maximum range - 13 seconds, rocket mass - 17,6 kg, rocket length - 1048 mm, - the developers began to make desperate attempts to fit into the short slot of the unfortunate carousel. Attempts have evolved in two directions:

- the creation of a short (“paradoxical” in the terminology of A. Arkhangelsky) rocket in the dimensions of the standard high-explosive fragmentation projectile 3ОF26 with an extension of 5,5. Such a rocket 9М119 for the Svir and Reflex complexes was developed by the Tula KBP in 1986 year. The rocket turned subsonic with great flight time to the target. At the same time, the powder charge occupied only 1 / 3 of the volume of the throwing part, the rest of the volume remained empty. On the use of missiles to destroy maneuvering helicopters, the question was not raised at all;

- the second direction was to develop a rocket, consisting of two parts of separate loading, joined in the bore. This type includes 125-mm TOUR 9М112 “Cobra” developed by KBTM - the length of the rocket assembly 950 mm, elongation 7,6 - and 120-mm TOUR “Combat” developed by GAHK “Artem”, Ukraine, extension 930 / 120 = 7,8.

A common drawback of missiles of this type is considered to be insufficient reliability due to the unpredictable behavior of the junction of parts at high overloads when fired.

A return to the unitary patron will require a transition to a new type of automatic loader. This new species can be considered already universally recognized. It is located in the aft niche of the tower (shoulder strap) and contains a closed belt conveyor with a direction of movement perpendicular to the axis of the tower. Currently, all foreign tanks with automatic loaders are equipped with automatic weapons of this type (Leclerc (France), Type 90 (Japan), K2 Black Panther (South Korea), Yatagan (Ukraine)). This machine was used in an experienced domestic tank "Black Eagle".

The compartment of the machine with a set of unitary cartridges is separated from the fighting compartment by a mobile armored partition and equipped with ejection panels preventing the defeat of the fighting compartment and the crew in it when the ammunition is ignited due to falling into the compartment of small-caliber projectiles, large fragments and armor-piercing bullets.

One of the obvious advantages of this design of the machine is the possibility of easy adjustment to its unitary shots of a larger caliber (140 mm and 152 / 155 mm). It also points to a strong simplification of the procedure for loading the automatic rifle with a new ammunition load, including with the use of an automatic loader on the ammunition carrier.

It is already quite obvious that the role of TUR will continuously increase. This is due to the main military concept of the United States and NATO, based on the desire to avoid contact battle (“winning the battle before the battle”). According to some estimates, the share of TOUR in tank ammunition reaches 30 – 40%. New designs of unitary shots with TUR are being continuously developed using cumulative combat units, including tandem and hypersonic rockets with armor-piercing rods. Examples include the Lahat TOUR (Israel) and МRМ-М-КЕ (Mid Range Minition Kinetik Energy, USA). The data of both TUR are presented in the table.

In the future, super-sound TUR with caution of 10 – 12 are carefully reviewed. They will occupy an intermediate position between the existing TUR and helicopters of the 9М114 type “Sturm” - diameter 130 mm, length 1830 mm, elongation 14, flight speed 420 – 530 m / s.

The final decision on the appearance of the TUR for the Armat tank and the automatic loader for it will depend on the solution of two key issues:

- will the tank keep the classical scheme with a habitable tower or will it receive an uninhabited tower?

- Ammunition will be completely removed from the armored volume of the tank and placed entirely in the automatic loader or part of the ammunition will be stored in an armored volume?

To date, the last scheme is implemented in tanks. In the automatic loader is only half the ammunition.

One must be aware that returning to a unitary cartridge with a bottle sleeve will require complex and expensive developments:

- full processing of the breech of the gun;

- development of a long, partially burning cartridge having sufficient strength. This may require the use of nanomaterials in the sleeve, such as carbon fibers;

- design development of the liner, ensuring reliable fixation of a heavy rocket in it. The solution to this problem is proposed in the application of MSTU for the Subori unitary cartridge with ROUND;

- development of the rocket body design, ensuring its durability during compression of the powder gases in the process of firing.

Difficulties are expected great. But to overcome them will have to go. Split loading is incompatible with current trends in the development of tank ammunition. Saving it will make the tank "Armata" hopeless. Returning to the unitary patron is the only way to ensure the survival of "Armata" in competition with Western tanks.

In conclusion, we pay tribute to emotions. An error has been made. 50 years went the wrong way and it looks like we will go further. AT stories domestic weapons difficult to pick up a similar episode. It is impossible to get rid of the sad impression that the professional level of specialists has fallen. The infallible flair of engineering, which has always distinguished the Russian school of technology, has disappeared.

Or there was another: they saw the mistake, but they were silent. Then we must remember the well-known definition: the engineer acts and creates in the five-dimensional space - three spatial coordinates, time and conscience. It seems that in the case of separate loading of tanks, the dimension of space has decreased.

Armata: a chance to fix a long-term mistake
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
121 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Rodriques
    Rodriques 4 February 2014 07: 07
    +21
    Where is "Armata"? Has anyone seen him?
    1. Civil
      Civil 4 February 2014 08: 02
      +16
      Oh this is an eternal debate ... unitary and separate ...
      1. sledgehammer102
        sledgehammer102 4 February 2014 08: 35
        +12
        Quote: Rodriques
        Where is "Armata"? Has anyone seen him?

        This is not exactly what you need to show everywhere))) At the Victory Parade in 2015 year you will see))


        Quote: Civil
        Oh this is an eternal debate ... unitary and separate ...

        Most likely, here our engineers once again ahead of time. All the same, no matter how the author calls this decision thoughtless, I hardly believe in it. Most likely they thought and gathered advice on the problem.


        In general, when I saw the headline, I thought that they would write about the location of the engine and the long-awaited single platform for all armored vehicles, and not the vinigret that went to the USSR because of different design bureaus in the RSFSR and Ukraine
        1. Canep
          Canep 4 February 2014 11: 05
          +32
          We repeat again: the transition of domestic tanks in 1962 to a separate loading shot was a mistake.
          I did not find it necessary to read further. Not an engineer wrote. Separate loading is much more convenient for a loading machine, it allows you to make a more compact machine, which helps to reduce the reserved volume and reduce the weight of the tank.
          1. avg
            avg 4 February 2014 11: 32
            +8
            Quote: Canep
            Separate loading is much more convenient for a loading machine, it allows you to make a more compact machine, which helps to reduce the reserved volume and reduce the weight of the tank.

            I will not say which is more convenient. More compact - yes. Weight loss, if yes, is negligible. But this is not about that at all. The fact is that our ammunition loses in range, speed, armor penetration, etc. By switching to a unitary shot, we give the opportunity to eliminate this gap.
            1. common man
              common man 4 February 2014 11: 58
              +14
              And what prevents you from changing the automatic loader for longer ammunition and leaving it separate? In any case, it's easier to charge two 900 than one 1800. Or two 1200 than one 2400. The only limitation is the missiles. They are simpler all the same solid. And the second thing. what are the prospects for using liquid "gunpowder"?
            2. Canep
              Canep 4 February 2014 12: 16
              +13
              Quote: avg
              By switching to a unitary shot, we give the opportunity to eliminate this gap.
              Our tanks have the longest arm in the world, not a single main tank in the world fires missiles, the range of confident destruction of an enemy tank by our tank is about 4-5 km, which is equal to the range of visibility. What lag are you talking about? The fact that our blank shoots worse ?, so I think this method of fighting tanks is outdated.
              1. avg
                avg 4 February 2014 13: 05
                +8
                Quote: Canep
                Our tanks have the longest arm in the world, not a single main tank in the world fires missiles, the range of confident destruction of an enemy tank by our tank is about 4-5 km

                Here is an incomplete list of TOUR. USA "MRM-KE" -12 km; South Korea “KSTAM” - 8km; France "Polynege" -7.5km; Israel "Lahat" - 8,7 / 13 km. (except Israel deliveries - India, Germany, Croatia); Ukraine "Combat" - 5 km.
                Quote: Canep
                The fact that our blank shoots worse ?, so I think this method of fighting tanks is outdated.

                It remains the main and most effective method so far. ("There is no reception against scrap" - no one has canceled)
                1. Canep
                  Canep 4 February 2014 15: 30
                  +7
                  Quote: avg
                  USA "MRM-KE" - 12 km
                  is under development.
                  Quote: avg
                  South Korea “KSTAM” - 8km
                  - This ATGM is the same in development, at the initial stage.
                  Quote: avg
                  France Polynege -7.5km
                  not adopted
                  In 2005, tests were carried out on individual elements of the projectile and the model of the projectile in a wind tunnel. The first demonstration firing was carried out in November 2007. The second demonstration firing in March 2008 showed the ability of the projectile to pre-programmed flight over a distance of more than 5 km. In 2008, Nexter's contract with the French Armed Forces General Directorate DGA ended. However, in December 2008, the DGA funded a series of additional tests of the Polynege shell conducted by Nexter Munitions and TDA Armaments SAS, which develops mortar mines, detonators, and other ammunition. The purpose of these tests was to verify the concept of laser-guided munitions and evaluate the results obtained during the implementation of the Polynege project for the possible transfer of proven technologies to the new program.

                  In April 2009, the technologies developed in the Polynege project were included in a new, more extensive program called Metric-Precision Munition (MRM) to develop a family of guided artillery munitions with a modular semi-active laser seeker. The program is jointly implemented by Nexter and TDA Armaments SAS. It is assumed that the developed GOS can be integrated into a number of ammunition, including the 155-mm guided artillery shell MPM, similar to the US-Swedish 155-mm guided shell "Excalibur". Demonstration tests under the MRM program are planned for 2012. The immediate efforts will be aimed at creating a 120-mm mortar mine, as well as 120-mm guided tank ammunition, experiencing much higher overload mines. Nexter anticipates that as a result of the work carried out under the new program, the Polynege tank guided projectile will be adopted in 2015.
                  http://www.dogswar.ru/boepripasy/snariady-rakety/6569-ypravliaemyi-boeprip.html
                  From your list only
                  Quote: avg
                  Israel "Lahat" - 8,7 / 13 km.
                  Adopted.
                  I did not know about this shell. I repent. Nothing is known about its combat use.
              2. Pimply
                Pimply 4 February 2014 13: 59
                -4
                Quote: Canep
                no main tank in the world fires missiles,

                Bet?
                1. Pimply
                  Pimply 5 February 2014 00: 57
                  -1
                  Seven minuses from the illiterate 8)
            3. andrey682006
              andrey682006 4 February 2014 12: 40
              +5
              Well, eliminate the backlog today, and tomorrow will have to increase the length of the shot even more - then lengthen the tower? belay
              After all, in Armata (it seems) was supposed to give turret space for AZ? Is it possible that separate b / ps of large length will not fit in there? And separate loading, in the future, will be beneficial - b / c will be all in the AZ and will become larger, more secure, it will be possible to use more types of ammunition. The tower will decrease, again.
              By the way, in this case, when removing the tower, the AZ with the combat station (according to the modular principle) will also be removed from it - modernization will become easier.
              1. svp67
                svp67 5 February 2014 10: 28
                0
                Quote: andrey682006
                Well, eliminate the backlog today, and tomorrow will have to increase the length of the shot even more - then lengthen the tower?

                It is possible to solve VERY many problems by switching to Liquid Throwing Substances ... Moreover, there are already finished samples of such substances ...
            4. The comment was deleted.
            5. nagual
              nagual 4 February 2014 13: 31
              +26
              Quote: avg
              The fact is that our ammunition loses in range, speed, armor penetration, etc.

              This only applies to armor-piercing shells for guns 2A46. They lose the western in length - yes, due to limitations in the design of AZ / MZ serial machines. However, for the new 2A82 gun - which, if anything, can even be installed on the T-90 - this is no longer relevant. The muzzle energy of 2A82 is higher than that of the German Rheinmetall Rh 120 / L55, not to mention the L-44, which is on the Americans. Other ammunition of greater length go to it. And the automatic loader, respectively, is also different. No unitary ammunition of "naval size" laughing laughing laughing to increase the power of tank guns are not needed.
              1. vladkavkaz
                vladkavkaz 4 February 2014 15: 31
                +15
                nagual
                Bravo, one short answer and the whole article, for the most part, to the dump.)))
              2. avg
                avg 4 February 2014 16: 56
                -3
                Quote: nagual
                No unitary ammunition of "naval size" is needed to increase the power of tank guns.

                You yourself perfectly understand that the article is not about that. It does not say about increasing the constructive power of the gun, not about increasing the caliber, not about more powerful gunpowders. There it is written in black in Russian that, when separately charged, we lose in the power of the BOPS and put ourselves in a obviously disadvantageous position on missiles that you ignore in silence, and which are not positively affected by the increase in muzzle energy. By the way, it will be possible to speak about the gun itself after it has been adopted. Although, if you write for "vladkavkaz", for which "Bravo, one short answer and the whole article, for the most part, to the dump.)))." That, as they say, is “a saber in your hands”
              3. Armata
                Armata 4 February 2014 21: 35
                +2
                Quote: nagual
                2A82 -
                - Do you see the gopher?
                -not
                -And I don’t see, but he is. laughing (DMB)
                And if easier. Where is this gun?
                1. nagual
                  nagual 5 February 2014 01: 11
                  0
                  On the export T-90SM
                  She will also be on the MBT on the Armata platform. Alas, from the "sister" 2A82 - 152-mm 2A83 still refused.
            6. AlNikolaich
              AlNikolaich 4 February 2014 17: 42
              +7
              Quote: avg
              our ammunition loses in range, speed, armor penetration, etc. By switching to a unitary shot, we give the opportunity to eliminate this gap.

              ??? Ah, sorry, in what way? How does a unitary projectile increase range, speed and armor penetration? Unitary loading gives only an increase in the length and mass of the projectile, a significant increase in the size and mass of the charging machine. And if these parameters are secondary in the fleet (you can find a lot of space on the ship), then in the tank ... In short, what is the 1962 error of the year? And what prevents:
              Quote: man in the street
              change automatic loader for longer ammunition and leave it separate?

              In short, the article minus for nonsense like: "the engineer acts and creates in five-dimensional space - three spatial coordinates, time and conscience. It seems that in the case of separate loading of tanks, the dimensionality of space decreased."
              I myself am not a tanker, but an engineer. I have a friend tanker and engineer! He agrees with me!
            7. Saburov
              Saburov 4 February 2014 23: 31
              +2
              And who told you that our ammunition loses in armor penetration? No one has directly conducted such tests, and the approaches and secrets of casting armor steel are different in our country and in the West, you can drive the shell anywhere, for sure, you can blow it up with a blank. So all this grandma said in two, T-72’s defeat Iraq in the 1991 was mainly hit by ATGMs with Bradley and army aviation, the Americans avoided direct tank-to-tank collisions, due to superiority in the SLAs and reconnaissance, and the ammunition from the amers was modern, everything that is written in the technical specifications and the characteristics of the ammunition confirm, and this can be done do it only in combat conditions, since bench trials will not really give you anything, even a properly welded iron bed can level all these characteristics, I’ve been in ammunition tests, well, he punched 650 mm homogenous corners in 60 degrees, and in the Karabakh conflict , from the photo report I didn’t break through the forehead because of the rotation of the tower and 200mm, the uranium also did not justify itself, since there were several cases of defeat in the forehead from the recoilless and RPGs, and it’s always once at a time, so a person, like technology, is a victim circumstances olodoy people.
            8. The comment was deleted.
          2. Genry
            Genry 4 February 2014 13: 20
            -2
            Quote: Canep
            Not an engineer wrote. Separate loading is much more convenient for a loading machine, it allows you to make a more compact machine, which helps to reduce the reserved volume and reduce the weight of the tank.

            And this is the child's writing.

            You are talking about the effectiveness of the shot, and you are talking about the automatic loader. So take a super reliable and lightweight AK and use it to fight against enemy tanks.

            Unitary projectile allows you to optimize the volume of one shot.
            A long "arrow" is needed for the BTS and it is already more than one meter. With a separate "shot", the length of the charge will also be added, and for a unitary one, everything will fit in one volume.

            For different types of shots you need a different ratio of projectile-charge.
            For rockets, the charge is minimal, and the rocket itself wants to be more authentic.
            For HEs, there may be different ranges, flatness, power, or several parts.

            The benefits of unitary.
            Automatic loader easier, rate of fire and higher reliability.
            Allows you to stay with a gun of caliber 125 instead of 150.

            The only minus of the unitary weight was that it was the main factor in the transition to a separate projectile-charge (even in IS tanks in World War II). But this is secondary to the effectiveness of hitting targets.
            And it’s already automated, right up to refueling the conveyor of the machine with the help of a special charging machine.
            1. nagual
              nagual 4 February 2014 13: 58
              +15
              Quote: Genry
              The only minus of the unitary weight was that it was the main factor in the transition to a separate projectile-charge (even in IS tanks in World War II). But this is secondary to the effectiveness of hitting targets.
              And it’s already automated, right up to refueling the conveyor of the machine with the help of a special charging machine.

              That is not the question. MZ / AZ appeared not only for weight loss, but also to reduce the reserve volume. And the main minus of the unitary shot is not the weight, but the length! Like it or not, but long unitary shots cannot be placed in the turret carousel. Only in the aft niche of the tower! And this means that the tank’s tower will be of the same monstrous size as Leo and Abrams.
              1. Genry
                Genry 4 February 2014 14: 46
                0
                Quote: nagual
                Like it or not, but long unitary shots cannot be placed in the turret carousel. Only in the aft niche of the tower


                Firstly, monstrous towers solve many problems.
                This is the barrel balancer, which reduces the skew power of the tower and facilitates its rotation and accuracy.
                This is the mass that compensates for the momentum of the gun’s shot in relation to the shoulder strap.
                This is the ability to place part of the ammunition closer to the breech of the gun, which simplifies the automatic loader and increases the rate of fire.

                Secondly. The extension of the stern of the tower will be at most half a meter. The length of the charge is added for delivery to the gun, which will still happen with an increase in the length of the "arrow" for the BPS and the rocket (we are silent, what will happen with an increase in caliber !!!).

                And about the fact that the ammunition is only in the lumpy part of the tower. If the tower is uninhabited, the conveyor can be located in turret space, vertically (horizontally), in several rows (rings), which will increase the number of shots. But it is fraught with a complete burnout of the tank in case of defeat (this is not to extinguish diesel fuel).

                And without discussion, a unitary projectile (with the same characteristics) has less volume and weight per shot than double loading !!!
                1. common man
                  common man 4 February 2014 16: 01
                  +5
                  Quote: Genry
                  This is the barrel balancer, which reduces the skew power of the tower and facilitates its rotation and accuracy.
                  This is the mass that compensates for the momentum of the gun’s shot in relation to the shoulder strap.

                  But these are all variables. As the ammunition is consumed, the weight of the turret stern will change significantly, and this also needs to be taken into account.
                2. AlNikolaich
                  AlNikolaich 4 February 2014 17: 53
                  +5
                  Quote: Genry
                  Firstly, monstrous towers solve many problems.

                  Rather, they do not decide but add! Increase in the total mass of the tank! Raising the center of gravity! Increased lateral projection (anti-tanker's dream)!
                  Quote: Genry
                  And without discussion, a unitary projectile (with the same characteristics) has less volume and weight per shot than double loading !!!

                  And this is suddenly with a fright? Without discussion, you are wrong!
                3. Canep
                  Canep 4 February 2014 18: 05
                  +9
                  Quote: Genry
                  And without discussion, a unitary projectile (with the same characteristics) has less volume and weight per shot than double loading !!!
                  The unitary shell has a sleeve weighing 8-10 kg, which after the shot needs to be put somewhere. If thrown away, then the factories will need to do it in a new way, and if not thrown away, then the sleeve-laying machine should be primed. And then this weight does not participate in the process of the shot, and with 45 shots the weight of this ballast will be 450 kg, this is 1 sq m of armor 60 mm thick.
          3. The comment was deleted.
      2. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 4 February 2014 10: 19
        +11
        And what actually argue? make a gun for both shells and see which is more effective, I remember when Russia could afford not only to experiment with guns, but also several tanks at once.
    2. RUS96
      RUS96 4 February 2014 09: 18
      +1
      At the PARADE in the 15th year we will see. soldier laughing
    3. tronin.maxim
      tronin.maxim 4 February 2014 14: 46
      +1
      Quote: Rodriques
      Where is "Armata"? Has anyone seen him?

      I found photos on the Internet, as far as I can’t judge the truth!
      1. tronin.maxim
        tronin.maxim 4 February 2014 14: 49
        0
        And yet what:
      2. Tjumenec72
        Tjumenec72 4 February 2014 20: 10
        +2
        The horror is terrible) - at least something new would be found)
    4. tilovaykrisa
      tilovaykrisa 4 February 2014 14: 54
      +2
      Saw but do not say yet because it is a secret.
  2. Duke
    Duke 4 February 2014 07: 14
    +2
    alleged layouts
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 4 February 2014 07: 26
      +4
      Hopefully, they will choose the most optimal shot design. But I have never heard of the tank gun being altered ("complete reworking of the breech of the gun") for "Armata"; Does it not follow from this that it was decided to leave the split shot?
  3. tvn
    tvn 4 February 2014 07: 28
    +15
    separate loading may be outdated, but allowed decades to have the world's only mass tank with automatic loader
    1. Kite
      Kite 4 February 2014 09: 38
      +18
      Can! Or maybe the author got carried away with universalization? Is the tank a universal weapon? Quote: "In addition to the main task - the defeat of the tank in the line of sight - they are entrusted with the task of destroying enemy tanks on the way to the battlefield at ranges up to 8 km and the task of combating anti-tank helicopters."And this despite the fact that special self-propelled anti-tank systems such as" Shturm "and assault aircraft have been created. Are we forgetting the lessons of Guderian? Tank corps / armies are complex formations, and the author sees in battle only a tank battalion and in each tank requires everything necessary to the maximum.
      1. avg
        avg 4 February 2014 11: 54
        +3
        Quote: Kite
        Can! Or maybe the author became interested in universalization? Is the tank a universal weapon?

        To simplify, the author popularly explains that a scrap (armor-piercing, sub-caliber projectile) of 1.5 m in length will reliably break through armor that a crowbar of 0.7 m in length cannot penetrate. (just talking about line of sight), and, accordingly, the largest length of the missile can be placed most of all (explosives, gunpowder, equipment). That is, he proposes to solve, finally, a ripe problem.
        1. Kite
          Kite 4 February 2014 12: 34
          +3
          Quote: avg
          accordingly, the largest length of the missile can be placed the most (cc, gunpowder, equipment).

          - this is clear to anyone without explanation (hopefully)! But the question is that not only the tower and the cannon impose restrictions on the length and thickness of the "scrap". By the way, is scrap 3m long more effective than scrap 1,5m? wink And what size of ammunition rack is required to accommodate at least 10 ATGM missiles "Attack"? (designed for a range of up to 5 km, not 8 km!)
          1. avg
            avg 4 February 2014 13: 32
            +1
            Quote: Kite
            it is clear to anyone without explanation (hopefully)!

            It’s just not clear to you. That a TUR long - 1,4 m is always more powerful than a TUR long 0.7 m, and another 0.7 m is a propelling charge, the power of which is excessive for a rocket, i.e. 2/3 of the volume is not used.
            Quote: Kite
            And what size of ammunition rack is required to accommodate at least 10 ATGM missiles "Attack"?

            ATGM Attack through the barrel is not fired, and is not stored in the combat unit / wink
            1. Kite
              Kite 4 February 2014 13: 58
              +2
              "Attack" I cited as an example of a type of overall missile, which, of course, will not fit in a tank's ammo rack (of reasonable size) and a "Shturm-S" was created for it, which was quite transparently "hinted at" in the posts above. If you think that you can reproach me twice without reason, then explain: what does the kinetic energy of a sub-caliber projectile depend on, what are explosives characterized by? Is the Tsar Cannon with a barrel of black powder in its charge really a standard for repetition and there is no other option? Shouldn't the "Pantsir" module on the trailer also be adapted?
              The desire for one-man power can turn into absurdity!
              1. avg
                avg 4 February 2014 14: 36
                0
                Quote: Kite
                Is the Tsar Cannon with a barrel of black powder in its charge really a standard for repetition and there is no other option? Shouldn't the "Pantsir" module on the trailer also be adapted?

                This is called - "Ostap carried ..." And you can see the answers to your numerous questions in an interesting article: http://topwar.ru/31337-kineticheskie-snaryady-i-rakety.html
      2. Atlas
        Atlas 4 February 2014 12: 09
        +8
        I don’t think that a tank should fight enemy helicopters as its main threat .. It is important here how our command sees the tank in the general chain of armed forces. I would not let go of the tanks alone without helicopter cover and BMPT support, in the end there are soldiers with MANPADS. Therefore, I think that the tank should first of all be able to defend itself from an air attack due to KAZ, armor and maneuver. Other helicopters must shoot down helicopters, because our tanks have at least some kind of rocket that’s already good, and for a long time nobody had them except us ..
  4. Terrible ensign
    Terrible ensign 4 February 2014 07: 31
    +8
    The article is smart and quite problematic ... Interesting in terms of a possible discussion.
    Discussion is required by specialist tank engineers. Colleagues connect. He himself did not serve in tanks, but he always treated this technique with great reverence, and to fellow tankmen with great respect.
  5. shibi
    shibi 4 February 2014 07: 32
    +3
    The first time I hear about Armata.
  6. shibi
    shibi 4 February 2014 07: 35
    +3
    I found a video on YouTube.

    Funny car.
    1. Siberia 9444
      Siberia 9444 4 February 2014 07: 46
      +7
      Really funny car and especially the tower! I don’t want to say, but if a shell gets into it, it will fly off to where they will look! (Maybe just a duck this video) request We need a crew of tankers.
      1. core
        core 4 February 2014 09: 51
        +3
        let her fly off with her; there is no crew in this tower.
        1. Siberia 9444
          Siberia 9444 4 February 2014 10: 05
          +4
          But to build a tank without a tower is a BTR-T for 3 people. request
          1. Fregate
            Fregate 4 February 2014 11: 26
            +13
            And instead of one torn off, two new ones grow back laughing
          2. Papakiko
            Papakiko 4 February 2014 11: 30
            +4
            Quote: Siberia 9444
            But to build a tank without a tower is a BTR-T for 3 people.

            belay I think that it will be more accurate not an armored personnel carrier, but an engineering vehicle for plowing the ground and breaking through walls (although in this case it will lose to the real "engineers").
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 4 February 2014 19: 01
        +2
        if Alex TV and the Mechanic do not react to this "product", then this fake deserves nothing except a smile ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
  7. My address
    My address 4 February 2014 07: 45
    -4
    Only unitary! I know T-62. I tried in the T-72 - machine gun fails, cranes the car in a maneuverable battle. Separate well with safety net when its many.
    1. BARKAS
      BARKAS 4 February 2014 09: 37
      +2
      Yes, and another tanker in the carriage does not hurt extra hands come in handy especially wherever in the field especially.
      1. Kite
        Kite 4 February 2014 09: 51
        +4
        Sorry, your phrase:
        Quote: BARKAS
        extra hands come in handy
        - written with humor? smile
        But the head, legs, heart, priest - are not needed, can they be left at home, in their place and take additional ammunition? wink
        1. St Petrov
          St Petrov 4 February 2014 15: 50
          +2
          The smaller the crew - the fewer coffins in the event of a car hit.
        2. St Petrov
          St Petrov 4 February 2014 15: 50
          0
          The smaller the crew - the fewer coffins in the event of a car hit.
      2. Canep
        Canep 4 February 2014 12: 26
        +8
        Quote: BARKAS
        extra hands come in handy

        The Jews generally put the replacement crew in the tank. Let's follow their path, push everything we can into the tank, why not have a resting room, latrine, dining room for the main and replacement crew in the tank. Cook? as without him, and if something breaks down the workshop with technicians will be very useful. And a sauna with a pool would not be in the way. And you get "Iron Kaput":
        We will get to such an absurdity along this path, I think it is necessary on the contrary, to expel the gunner from the tank, and in the future, the mechvod.
        1. BARKAS
          BARKAS 4 February 2014 12: 50
          +3
          In vain, irony with us, the tankers generally didn’t dig their vehicles at all and did not disguise themselves, just didn’t have time to do this physically, unlike the self-propelled gunners, where the crew is 6 people!
          1. Canep
            Canep 4 February 2014 15: 11
            +7
            Firstly, fighting on the defensive is far from being the main battlefield for tankers, secondly, tanks are equipped with self-digging equipment, and if it doesn’t work then this is their problem, and if there isn’t a tank in this company, then these are also problems of tankers, but of a higher level - the head of the BT service of the unit or regiment. In addition, defense is a type of battle requiring engineering training, and there is a standard for sapper units for fragments of trenches, including tanks, if the NIS regiment is gouged, then tankers can be sympathetic. Digging a trench with a shovel for a tank by crew is a masochism that is justified only in exceptional cases, in my opinion, 8 hours are allotted for this masochism, during which time the tank is a target, not a combat unit.
          2. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 4 February 2014 17: 40
            +3
            Nowadays, for a tank or self-propelled guns to dig a trench (caponier) by the crew with shovels-insanity.
            And why did they put the dump of self-digging?
            Isn't that what it is for? wink
            And why engineering tank or art. units?
            1. BARKAS
              BARKAS 4 February 2014 20: 32
              0
              Quote: wanderer_032
              And why engineering tank or art. units?

              And so it turned out. We gunners were digging trenches for everyone and for tankers!
        2. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 4 February 2014 19: 04
          +1
          We will get to such an absurdity along this path, I think it is necessary on the contrary, to expel the gunner from the tank, and in the future, the mechvod. wassat and hatches brew ....
      3. Doznanied
        Doznanied 4 February 2014 13: 26
        +2
        I can not agree with this, in case of death, the loss of 4 people, and this is incomparably worse than 3. And now multiply by 10, 20, 30 dead crews ...
    2. Atlas
      Atlas 4 February 2014 12: 13
      +3
      At that time, there was such a concept of war - a massive strike of tank armada, so there were many "friends"))))))
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 4 February 2014 16: 54
      0
      Tanks do not drive one at a time.
    4. Saburov
      Saburov 5 February 2014 19: 09
      -1
      My friend, before writing like that about 72 and the automatic loader, at least read Wikipedia or go on an excursion. As a graduate of the ChVTKU and an officer who has dealt with 72 for 30 for years already, it’s ridiculous to read to me.
    5. Saburov
      Saburov 5 February 2014 19: 09
      0
      My friend, before writing like that about 72 and the automatic loader, at least read Wikipedia or go on an excursion. As a graduate of the ChVTKU and an officer who has dealt with 72 for 30 for years already, it’s ridiculous to read to me.
  8. Doznanied
    Doznanied 4 February 2014 08: 33
    +4
    Correctly say, "Everything ingenious is simple." The simpler the automatic loader, the more reliable, respectively, if it is easier and more reliable to make a machine for unitary ammunition, then this is exactly what needs to be done.
    In addition, the placement of ammunition behind an armored obstacle in an uninhabited MBT space, and even with kick panels, is definitely a big +! And the opinions of some specialists, like: “so what, that the BC is under the feet of the MBT crew, but we have a crew of 3 people, and no more, and thereby the losses in l / s are reduced” - this is nonsense.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 4 February 2014 10: 24
      +5
      But doesn’t it bother you that the armored partition is designed to protect the crew when they get into a niche with ammunition of large-caliber bullets?
      1. Doznanied
        Doznanied 4 February 2014 12: 56
        0
        "large-caliber bullets" - certainly confusing!
        In the press there is evidence that the vaunted “Abrams” loses its combat readiness when fired from a heavy machine gun into the stern projection of the tower. Although the ammunition compartment allocated from the inhabited compartment, in my opinion, should be reliably protected. Maybe it's just a fight for weight?
  9. pawel1961
    pawel1961 4 February 2014 08: 34
    +12
    tired of all this verbiage
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 4 February 2014 10: 34
      +14
      Quote: pawel1961
      tired of all this verbiage

      That's right! good
      Better not a unitary or separate a / c, but simply the one that is currently the best in terms of its characteristics.
      This can only be determined as a result of an unbiased and competent study of the operational experience and combat use of ammunition, and not as a result of discussion in the media.
  10. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 4 February 2014 08: 35
    +2
    Over the years, there are a lot of words "but things are still there" - an automatic loader, a unitary cartridge, but in the end it turns out that a completely new gun is needed, capable of using 50% to 50% new shells and rounds.
  11. Gardamir
    Gardamir 4 February 2014 08: 40
    +2
    I ask again. What does "Armata" mean? I know Russian well, but even in the Old Russian language I did not come across such a word. I remember well how in 2013, on the Victory Day, Italian cars "Iveco" drove through Red Square. named for some reason "Lynx". Hence the legitimate question, so what is "Armata"?
    1. shibi
      shibi 4 February 2014 08: 57
      +7
      ARMY Automatic Tank Artillery! )))))))))
    2. tanit
      tanit 4 February 2014 09: 08
      +9
      hence (TSB) the legitimate answer-The meaning of the word "Armata" in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia-
      Armata, the ancient name of an artillery gun that appeared in Russia in the 2nd half of the 14th century. A.'s trunk was made of iron, which was folded into a tube and then a seam was welded; the barrel of a large caliber gun was made of several welded strips of iron.
      1. SPLV
        SPLV 4 February 2014 10: 20
        +5
        Let me add that the word "garmat" has passed from Old Russian to Ukrainian, which in fact still means "cannon", "weapon".
    3. dustycat
      dustycat 24 May 2015 13: 39
      0
      Here it is necessary to pick Erzya.
      Despite all the efforts to pull the arm to the Latin root, it has nothing to do with it, although somewhere nearby.
      Well, maybe 3-5 years older than Ancient Rome and the Latin language as such.
  12. ed65b
    ed65b 4 February 2014 08: 42
    +1
    In armature, the tower is uninhabited, it will seem. Who will push the shell into the barrel? Or will they put a Tajik without a name instead of an automatic loader? What can not be done with separate charging? Maybe they just didn’t set such a task. Well, we have a designer and engineers are really bad people.
    1. nagual
      nagual 4 February 2014 11: 53
      +8
      Quote: ed65b
      In armature, the tower is uninhabited, it will seem. Who will push the shell into the barrel?

      And in the T-64/72/80 who "shoves the shell into the barrel"? belay This is the Americans in the crew still has a hefty black man - loader. Our loading process has been automated for a very long time.
      1. AlNikolaich
        AlNikolaich 4 February 2014 18: 19
        +4
        Quote: nagual
        This is the Americans in the crew still has a hefty black man - loader.

        This is just the weakest link! Abrams rushes through the gaps, the crew is set to win!
        And only Uncle Tom is lying under the tower, with his fingers torn off, and screaming with good obscenities!
        There’s nobody to charge the gun! Checkered flag! Finita la comedy!
        It's me that the machine does not make mistakes, does not get tired, does not take offense soldier and not afraid! And, after all, he is not a black man! soldier
        1. AGM-114
          AGM-114 4 February 2014 18: 25
          +1
          Quote: AlNikolaich
          not offended

          Offended. Permissible deformation of the bottom of the T-72 - up to 8 mm. Absolutely any anti-aircraft mine disables AZ. T-64 and T-80 with a normal loading mechanism - up to 55 and 60 mm, respectively.
      2. Atlas
        Atlas 4 February 2014 23: 20
        0
        I imagine how it’s hard for the loader to work with such shaking, but what if the shell drops?
  13. umah
    umah 4 February 2014 09: 05
    +4
    Well, I don’t know, maybe the topic in the article was raised correctly, but not disclosed. As a result, I did not understand why unitary shots are better than separate ones. What is the error of separate loading, is not said. There are no comparative characteristics except the comparison of the TOURS of Israel and the SGA, which are generally not clear why.
  14. Sars
    Sars 4 February 2014 09: 12
    +1
    We repeat once again: the transition of domestic tanks in the 1962 year to the shot of separate loading was an error. Nobody in the world has gone this way. All but us saved unitary shots.

    And the author did not read about the English tanks?
  15. zzz
    zzz 4 February 2014 09: 14
    +1
    I don't understand tanks ... But I can't help but say: "KRASAFCHEGG" !!! And most importantly - OUR !!!
    1. Kite
      Kite 4 February 2014 13: 00
      +1
      Yeah, artist tried hard!
      Quote: zzz
      .But I must say: "KRASAFCHEGG" !!! And most importantly - OUR smile !!!
      smile
      - Not that Sibi’s picture of a funny car is shown! wassat
  16. waisson
    waisson 4 February 2014 09: 19
    +1
    every week an article about armature and a tank is where you want to look at least with one eye
  17. negeroi
    negeroi 4 February 2014 09: 23
    +6
    On the one hand, the article is good. A competent analysis of the situation. On the other hand ... there is no situation, and there is nothing to write about. In general, since the issue has been resolved and is embodied in metal. Although the tank gunners scratch their tongues. Like a gritsa, Bon appetit. )) I wouldn’t do it myself, but everything connected with Armata attracts, however.) But I still shove my three pennies. I understand perfectly well the fears of those who believe that switching to exclusively automatic equipment is premature. In case of failure of the mechanism, the tank becomes a tractor , ceases to be functional. However, I notice ANY failure of any of the key mechanisms makes ANY car unusable. And do you turn off the engine, what, does the tank remain a tank? Or, if the Kalash fails, will it be considered a useful weapon? I understand that I’m using it unusually - inconvenient phrases, but please pay attention to the fact that the best connection in the world is the retelling of one person to another person, or rather the transmission of a written message, then bish messenger. But we use I’m breaking down walkie-talkies. It’s possible to be afraid of a technology failure, but common sense says that there is a need for a balance between modernization and innovation, and simplicity and reliability. Unification for a single projectile-shot is a simplification. And refusal from manual loading is progress. At once , the same, perfect balance. To be afraid of a technology failure, well, you won’t be given a club, will it not refuse, or will it also have its own tricks? And to complicate an already complicated automatic loader is expensive and dangerous in terms of failure .And the author gave the chewing quite qualifically. There is nothing to argue about.
    1. small
      small 4 February 2014 10: 44
      0
      There is probably an entrance from the chassis to an uninhabited tower for servicing the guns. This input can also be used for manual control of a machine gun (grenade launcher), at least for self-defense and to get out of the shelling if the gun fails, this method is suitable.
    2. Atlas
      Atlas 4 February 2014 12: 17
      +3
      I recalled an interview with a Syrian tankman to ANNA-News journalist, so he praised the automatic loader and the power of the gun ..
      1. Kite
        Kite 4 February 2014 13: 18
        +2
        Still, remember that the gun is automated not only when loading, that the tank must be capable of firing at full speed across the field, that the unitary projectile is oversized and weighty (infection!), And then it remains only to pray for the poor fellow-loader so that the whole remains , even with training exercises.
  18. PROXOR
    PROXOR 4 February 2014 09: 34
    -7
    One must be realistic. We are building a tank similar to that of Merkava 4. No matter how much we disown it. And an analogy should be made with this tank. A significant difference between Merkava and Armata is in an uninhabited tower. So look at the Jewish tank. Ammunition near Merkava is located behind the tower. But the Izravets for some reason refused the automatic loader. Their crew consists of 4 people and up to 6 infantry people. Armata will obviously be stronger than Merkava. There will be no infantry compartment in it. The biggest concern is the total weight of the tank. Our tanks were good in patency due to their weight. 48 tons against 60 at the main competitors. We are waiting for the 2015 parade.
    1. Atlas
      Atlas 4 February 2014 12: 21
      +2
      May I have a bad question? I’m not special in technology, but what do you think (if the tank is similar to Markov4, but without infantry) you can’t push vertical rocket cells into the infantry compartment, would it be technically and constructively possible? Just do not scold me, I'm really interested ...
    2. evil hamster
      evil hamster 4 February 2014 18: 07
      +3
      Quote: PROXOR
      We are building a tank similar to the Merkava 4 tank
      Shchtaaa ???? Why do you think so?
      Quote: PROXOR
      A significant difference between Merkava and Armata is in an uninhabited tower

      Significant difference in everything including lineup
      Quote: PROXOR
      So look at the Jewish tank
      We look
      Quote: PROXOR
      The ammunition near Merkava is behind the tower
      Um, maybe I'm looking at some wrong measure, but "behind the tower" did you have a niche in the lead? The Merkava IMHO has 6 shots of the first stage, everything else is crammed into the fighting compartment.
      Quote: PROXOR
      But the Izravets for some reason refused the automatic loader

      They did not refuse him, he never had them.
      Quote: PROXOR
      Armata will obviously be stronger than Merkava
      Staaaa ????? belay belay belay
      You are clearly no net lit up have read
  19. ramsi
    ramsi 4 February 2014 09: 38
    +4
    Well, FIG knows, in the niche behind the tower there is not much space: enough for armor-piercing, and the rest? The deserted tower does not make the fire in the fighting compartment so terrible; the tower itself - works like a kick panel.
    The complexity of the junction of the two parts of the rocket seems far-fetched, and only with BOPS is the problem. It may still be better to be smart with AZ so that you can chew both unitary BOPS behind the tower and separate OFS under the tower
    1. ramsi
      ramsi 4 February 2014 10: 18
      0
      And it’s even more reasonable, probably, two AZs: the lower one with a carousel and the upper one under the BOPSs; if you look at how the loader works, say, in a merkava, then only two hands and a fulcrum are involved; in theory, the manipulator for a unitary tower in a niche should be simpler than in a carousel and in no way more dimensional
    2. bask
      bask 4 February 2014 17: 34
      +1
      Quote: ramsi
      Well, FIG knows, in the niche behind the tower there is not much space: enough for armor-piercing, and the rest? The deserted tower does n

      The article says it was worked out on the fleet. AK 130 gun
      A deserted combat module. Shooting.
      The technology has been worked out 130 mm, a promising caliber. In MBT ,, Challenger 2, also a rifled gun.

      1. ramsi
        ramsi 4 February 2014 18: 43
        +2
        Sorry, bask, I'm a bit dumb ... well, I see that the carousel is driving - so I don't mind; Well, it is impossible to make the BOPS full-fledged separate - so let it be unitary. Two AZ - more likely to work than one universal (there are different motion algorithms and charging angles), in addition, this is a "critical detail" and its duplication will not get any worse; By removing BOPS from the carousel, you can add OFS there, losing BOPS is not the end. The only thing you have to tinker with is the breech of the cannon, so that both separate and unitary cannons "swallow" - but it's easier than the universal AZ
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 4 February 2014 19: 08
          +1
          ak130 is a serious thing, but apparently moody, my younger one (he served in the Navy), he said that there were often problems during firing.
      2. Siberia 9444
        Siberia 9444 4 February 2014 19: 47
        +1
        Here is this horizontal line! good
  20. Dmitriy1975
    Dmitriy1975 4 February 2014 09: 58
    0
    A very good friend saw her live, the only thing I could get out of him was one word - beauty !!
  21. core
    core 4 February 2014 09: 59
    +2
    the tanks are now and are always used as mobile armored firing points, and there the BB is not the main thing. there were nothing tank fights, and in modern conflicts they are generally absent. In Libya, tanks are likely to shoot high-explosive currents. no one is going to fight 100 tanks per 100 tanks. it's fantastic. MUGGAGE POWER, here is the topic. In Iraq, Super Amer’s tanks did not participate in tank battles. QUESTION? why?
    1. uhu189
      uhu189 4 February 2014 13: 12
      0
      Well, actually you are wrong, participated in Iraq, there were tank battles in both the first and second companies. And the Iraqis, unfortunately, lost them. Rummage at least on Wikipedia, if you look deeper for laziness.
      1. core
        core 5 February 2014 21: 10
        0
        propaganda, all Iraqi tanks destroyed, either from the stern, or from above, (aviation)
  22. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 4 February 2014 10: 08
    0
    Of course, specialists decide. For example, German panzers were afraid of Soviet tiger fighters, but they had separate loading and therefore the rate of fire according to Wittmann's memoirs was 1 to 3 in favor of the tiger.
    1. Atlas
      Atlas 4 February 2014 12: 25
      +2
      but they were charged by people with heavy 152 mm discs + a charge of gunpowder in a battle of stress and general fatigue, hence 1: 3. With AZ it would be different ..
  23. Per se.
    Per se. 4 February 2014 10: 28
    +13
    To say that "The unmistakable engineering instinct that has always distinguished the Russian school of technology has disappeared" is rather in relation to the intervention of the "menagers", with their capitalism, who began to look at military equipment not as a weapon for battle, but as a product for trade ... Tank T-95, this is from the Soviet school, from the Soviet engineering, and its main feature was, among other things, the installation of 152 mm guns. The tank would have been ready long ago if its combat significance had not been sacrificed to the commercial concept of "platform". But isn't the "platform" family of vehicles based on the T-72 chassis? Now, here's the topic of the unitary shot. There was a time when unitary ammunition was considered acceptable up to 100-105 mm guns, separate loading for 125 mm tank guns was quite logical, especially with the prospect of increasing the caliber to 140-152 mm. If you do not take into account the weight of a unitary projectile, then unitary and separate (cap) loading in limited tank volumes is somewhat akin to a folding and non-folding rifle butt, and I think this was also an argument. Probably, it is not entirely correct to cite an example of a marine automatic 130 mm cannon, for the same weight and dimensional considerations. "Then we must remember the well-known definition: an engineer acts and creates in a five-dimensional space - three spatial coordinates, time and conscience." Conscience, this is, of course, very good, but for an engineer, REASON is more important here, and from the point of view of reason, not everything is as clear as we would like on the topic of choosing a unitary ammunition.
  24. shitovmg
    shitovmg 4 February 2014 10: 48
    +13
    I don’t think our designers made a mistake 50 years ago. Rather, the current ones have not grown to them !!!
    1. AGM-114
      AGM-114 4 February 2014 18: 10
      -3
      The main mistake is that some eccentrics with the letter m allowed the T-72 to be put into mass production and adopted this nedotank into service with all its shortcomings: a poor automatic loader, low protection against weapons of mass destruction due to the same automatic loader with a cartridge case ejection mechanism , because depressurization and radiation, dubious combat effectiveness due to the absence of any fire control system, etc.
      1. Atlas
        Atlas 4 February 2014 23: 36
        -1
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a_InNWRje4 Смотреть с 17 минуты. Это к тому что т72 был для своего времени полным Г. и недотанком ипослушай мнение запада о АЗ...
        1. AGM-114
          AGM-114 5 February 2014 17: 27
          -1
          He was a complete city against the background of the T-64 and T-80. Even more - he remains with them. Another thing is that it was massive and supplied to a wide variety of monkeys, so the west knew about it and studied it, and they could not feel the T-64 from the T-80 until the collapse of the union in the west.
  25. Sars
    Sars 4 February 2014 11: 24
    +2
    Tank battles did not happen because recently tanks were fighting with partisans.
    In the event of a war of states - without them (fighting is indispensable).
    The Americans and Iraqis really avoided tank battles as much as possible, although several times they did not succeed (there was a propaganda article on this site not long ago which Iraqi tankers down).
    1. core
      core 4 February 2014 11: 33
      +4
      this is the last time 60-70 years, the question? so were those constructors wrong? tank battle is an accident. on the Kursk Bulge, the German did not prepare for an oncoming tank battle. our command improvised. the breakthrough had to be stopped. used reserves, therefore, there was no further offensive. Prokhorovka is a positional battle, but current tanks. sane commanders, this will not go IF there is no reason. and for one single theoretical battle, breaking the entire tank weapons system is stupid.
      1. All1
        All1 4 February 2014 12: 32
        -4
        On YouTube there is a series from separate films about Wehrmacht tanks. In this series, there are shots of shooting tigers / ferdinades at T-34 at long ranges. One shot - one detonated tank on the horizon. It was very sad to look at it. Ours simply fumbled without maneuvering. In a war, most tankers will be inexperienced, you can beat them all at long range - missiles.
        The missiles are the future.
      2. All1
        All1 4 February 2014 12: 32
        -3
        On YouTube there is a series from separate films about Wehrmacht tanks. In this series, there are shots of shooting tigers / ferdinades at T-34 at long ranges. One shot - one detonated tank on the horizon. It was very sad to look at it. Ours simply fumbled without maneuvering. In a war, most tankers will be inexperienced, you can beat them all at long range - missiles.
        The missiles are the future.
  26. DAGESTAN333
    DAGESTAN333 4 February 2014 11: 33
    +5
    Guys, I can’t understand - is it possible that even with a 125 mm caliber, the unitary cartridge can fit in our tank, even in a promising one ..? Not to mention the possibility of manipulating it with the help of an automatic loader.
    1. All1
      All1 4 February 2014 12: 26
      -2
      Armata has no people in the tower, there is a lot of space. You can at least push it into it. At the same time, it makes no sense to take out ammunition due to armor.
    2. All1
      All1 4 February 2014 12: 26
      -2
      Armata has no people in the tower, there is a lot of space. You can at least push it into it. At the same time, it makes no sense to take out ammunition due to armor.
  27. andrey682006
    andrey682006 4 February 2014 12: 03
    +5
    And if in the future you have to increase the length of the projectile (rocket) even more?
    If the unitary projectile already ceases to fit into the dimensions of the tower, because the tank is not a ship?
    You can’t make a tower the size of a tank (IMHO).
    Again we will admit errors and return to the separate automatic loader?

    Isn’t it easier, using turret space, to provide for an increase in length for parts of a separate shot, to provide for the possibility of A.Z. with objects of different lengths?
    Then the b / c will be more, it will be well protected, the entire b / c will be in A.Z., the dimensions of the tower (and the tank) will decrease, the range of ammunition will increase.

    I’m not a tanker once, if I ask you to, do not hit hard. laughing
  28. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 4 February 2014 12: 16
    +4
    And then bang, the tank bangs its forehead against the cheese ground and turns into a helicopter, then bang m into a ship, and for the third time just do a walking robot ...
    Well, it’s impossible to make everything perfect in everything. Universalization is good until it begins to run counter to common sense and rational use.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. negeroi
      negeroi 4 February 2014 13: 13
      +4
      Precisely, precisely! It is a balance between and between. Everything is good up to a certain point, under certain conditions. Some countries gain, for some time, creating diverse options and modifications, and they begin to lose in certain conditions, due to exorbitant costs. it’s good everywhere. But in ideal conditions it’s ideal, in real conditions it can be worse than bad. The devil is in the details. We don’t know now, good or bad, this is a variant of the new modern tank. But for the country and industry now, on paper and in mathematics, an automatic gun is more advantageous and preferable.

      Many people think that de engineers used to be better. But I hear that the grass was greener. Yes, developers and industry didn’t count money either. But now, tankers couldn’t count money, and underwater tanks would fly and take off from under water.
  29. All1
    All1 4 February 2014 12: 23
    +1
    One can only guess about Armata.
    I assume that if they kept the caliber, then only for compatibility with shells with other MBTs - T-72/80/90.
    Rogozin said that the ammunition will be new for Almaty (and?).
    In general, the tower of Almaty is uninhabited, there is a lot of free space.
    It can be assumed that the tank will have two automatic loaders for different shells or one, but one in which the shot and charge will be stacked in the automatic loader together as a unitary shell.
    P.S. I myself am a motorized rifle, I saw the tank only from the outside. Everything is my guesses, like everything about Armata.
    1. Sars
      Sars 4 February 2014 13: 29
      +2
      And put a new tower on the T-90?
      The concept of Armata was created when our Taburetkins were sure that the best tank in the world was a merkava. I think - we get a worsened version of the Jewish miracle.
    2. Sars
      Sars 4 February 2014 13: 29
      0
      And put a new tower on the T-90?
      The concept of Armata was created when our Taburetkins were sure that the best tank in the world was a merkava. I think - we get a worsened version of the Jewish miracle.
  30. Gromila555
    Gromila555 4 February 2014 13: 32
    +2
    From the standpoint of a design engineer, I will say: the more you want to "cram" into ONE device of PRINCIPALLY DIFFERENT functions, the more likely it is to fail.
    The closest example: a harvester - practically for EVERY culture its own "collection tool".
    Outputs: 1) the creation of a completely new technology that combines the advantages of TOUR and shell
    2) the use of SPECIAL machines: some carry missiles, other shells, etc. etc. It is closest to reality, since in LARGE combat operations, military equipment units are used, acting in concert.
  31. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 4 February 2014 13: 59
    +19
    Vladimir Odintsov is a candidate of technical sciences. This is a matter of respect.
    But after reading the article, there was a feeling that the author had settled on a "fashionable" topic now ...
    And the thought goes through the whole article: the whole military-industrial complex of the USSR in the 60 years was fools, and I already declare after all 50 years that they are all wrong (and why didn’t you say that before?)
    In general - everyone doesn’t understand anything, I’m the only Dartanyan.

    What was put forward by the theater of that time period was taken into account when creating tanks. And the task was simple - to reach the English Channel in 2 weeks, i.e. until the Americans, on their pelvis, sail (namely, sail) to Europe.
    And AZ and MZ with separate loading of our tanks in THOSE TIMES and TOM TVD Perfectly met their requirements.
    So there is nothing to gain popularity on the "fashionable" topic now.

    The connection between the principle of separate loading and the maximum lengthening of the armor-piercing sub-caliber ammunition is strongly "attracted".
    Here the connection is completely different - in the design of the autoloader, that's all.
    Giving laudatory odes to unitary loading, the author completely forgets about the following problematic things:

    -more complicated transportation both in terms of weight and size and safety;
    - the presence in the shots of the Armed Forces of the USSR and the Russian Federation of high-explosive fragmentation shells (Westerners later began to introduce them into tank ammunition);
    - complexity of loading bk;
    - small capacity of shots in the AZ in the case of automatic loading and the difficulty of charging in the case of manual loading, which in both cases inevitably entails an increase in the reserved volume of the tank;
    -increase in tank caliber in the development of world tank building.
    and this is just without thinking and offhand ...

    You just need to describe the pros and cons of separate and unitary loading and try to determine the most optimal concept of a tank shot, and not one-sidedly promote only one pluses of a unitary shot, closing your eyes to the rest.

    What is the author's rights:
    The cell sizes of the rotating conveyors have not been changed for the whole 50 years, as well as the concept of the placement of ammunition, which is ... a bit too much, even taking into account the modernization backlog of the 60 developments.

    In return to the unitary shot in the development of future tank projects, I think a STEP BACK.
    A step forward is separate loading on OTHER PRINCIPLES:
    - A larger caliber projectile.
    - A charge in the form of HMW (Liquid Throwing Substance), injected into the charging chamber after the shelling. Moreover, the two-fraction iron-and-steel alloy, stored separately in the tank and low-fuel separately.
    In this case: Ammunition is increased, its volumetric deployment inside the tank is reduced, and safety in the event of a defeat of a combat vehicle is significantly increased.

    And there are such developments.

    ps I am not advocating separate loading. I don't understand the PR on the "fashionable" topic of bad Russian tanks.
    And you have to think about the future.
    1. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 4 February 2014 18: 18
      0
      Wow...
      Quote: Aleks tv
      - A charge in the form of HMW (Liquid Throwing Substance), injected into the charging chamber after the shelling. Moreover, the two-fraction iron-and-steel alloy, stored separately in the tank and low-fuel separately. In this case: the ammunition load increases, its volumetric placement inside the tank decreases, and safety when a combat vehicle is damaged is significantly increased.

      Don’t think I'm joking, but I'm really interested. Where can I read about it?
      1. typhoon7
        typhoon7 4 February 2014 18: 25
        +1
        I read about it back in the 80s. In the United States, they wanted to create self-propelled guns according to this scheme.
      2. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 6 February 2014 18: 52
        +1
        Quote: ShadowCat
        Where can I read about it?

        The development of iron and steel products has been ongoing for a long time. We were told about this in lectures at the end of the 80's.

        But ... in the open press and on the Internet there is practically no information on this topic.
        I collect it myself.
        wink

        Absolutely no jokes.
  32. Alex
    Alex 4 February 2014 14: 29
    +4
    There is no definite answer that a unitary shot or a separate one is better and can not be, since shortcomings are a continuation (or the reverse side) of the merits. Why was separate charging chosen? Caliber growth = increase in length of more than 1 meter and weight to half a centner or more for a unitary cartridge, while the diameter of the tower shoulder strap in the light is about 2 meters. Plus a mechanism (T-64 and T-80) or an automatic machine (T72 / 90) of loading the carousel type. Indeed, long BOPs will not fit into an existing machine / mechanism. But who prevents to make a new one in which they fit? Somewhere even a Russian patent for such a machine was posted.
    The automatic loader in the tower niche seems to be a good solution, but it leads to an increase in the dimensions of the tower and, accordingly, to an increase in the probability of its destruction. And its capacity is also limited to 20 shots from both the Frenchman and the Japanese, the rest of the BC in the case.
    In general, there is no perfect solution.
    And yet, why is a tank considered exclusively as an anti-tank weapon? Dueling can be, but the tank must hit many other and different targets.
    By the way, unitary shots to a NATO 120 mm tank gun do not have a high-explosive fragmentation projectile, instead of it a universal cumulative projectile that can be used as a general physical structure, but its power cannot be compared with 125 mm general physical form. And the 120 mm round with the BOPS has a trick, why the length of the whole shot did not increase with an increase in the length of the projectile - the BOPS was maximally sunk into the combustible sleeve almost to the pallet.
  33. nikcris
    nikcris 4 February 2014 15: 17
    0
    I correctly understood that me-ka-me flies to the goal for a minute? wassat
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 4 February 2014 16: 20
      +1
      This is so that the enemy crew could leave the car, the war should be humane laughing
  34. major124
    major124 4 February 2014 17: 10
    +1
    But what about the English MBT Challenger2 with 50 shots of separate loading?
  35. Tankomaster
    Tankomaster 4 February 2014 17: 36
    +5
    Gentlemen, the article is purely emotional, but the most important thing the author does not know is that the entire CD should be in an automated installation, and separate or unitary loading, it all depends on the layout.
    And I would wish the author to get into the tank at least once and try to load the cannon ... with a unitary and a separate projectile, then he will not write such a heresy.
    Service in the army and in the specialty of the appropriate profile discourages writing such a thicket ...
  36. Tankomaster
    Tankomaster 4 February 2014 17: 41
    +2
    Vladimir Odintsov is a candidate of technical sciences. This arouses "respect" stop, it arouses suspicion for checking the dissertation, wrote it himself or who was behind it?
    And her topic is also interesting ...
    In general, it is necessary to serve or study on the topic, so as not to disgrace a scientific degree.
  37. AGM-114
    AGM-114 4 February 2014 18: 01
    -5
    They will correct the mistake if it is smart enough to make unitary shells and take out the loading mechanism outside the tank. And if the moronic Chelyabinsk descendant of V-2 with its moronic centering is thrown out.
    I have not read the news.
  38. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 4 February 2014 18: 43
    +1
    The material in the article turned out to be one-sided and not objective.
    Like, what was created in the USSR in accordance with the requirements of that time and the tasks that the tankers were then facing, all this was a mistake (yeah, well, our designers did not realize in tanks what to take from them miserable, well, well ...).
    But a unitary "log" under 60kg, like in the West, throwing it into the breech is a complete nishtyak, despite the fact that you need to get it, raise it, throw it and push it (and all this when the car is moving and turning the tower, and if the battle is intense, so even faster) , not to mention the fact that one more person must be added to the crew.
    Actually, research was conducted on this topic in the USSR. It was experimentally found that the loader can throw only 10 (+/- 2) shells as efficiently as possible (tank officers, but they will not let you lie).
    Then he gets tired and does his job less efficiently (or just saying his hands start to "dry up" and he needs a break), as well as when he is injured or dies, the responsibility to throw shells into the breech of the gun falls on the shoulders of other capable crew members, distracting them from his main job.
    AZ for unitaries will definitely require global alterations in the design of the whole machine and will result in an increase in the overall dimensions of the BO and in an increase in the weight of the whole machine (because this will need to be protected by armor). For itself, in turn, this will pull the installation of a more powerful SU (ICE, transmission), which in turn will require additional. internal volume and additional weight increase.
    In short, a vicious circle is obtained. And besides this, there is a restriction in weight and dimensions due to the requirements of the State Academic Technical University for the possibility of transporting MBT to existing railway, water, air transport, as well as to the size of MBT in terms of visibility and the possibility of masking them on the ground, and in terms of the possibility of their shelter in caponiers and other engineering structures. And there are many other different requirements.
    To all of the above, I would like to say that you need to look at everything not one-sidedly, but in a complex way the picture in your head will be more objective.
  39. saramb
    saramb 4 February 2014 19: 28
    +1
    And where did you see the tank battle at ranges of 8-13 km. For such distances there are the Air Force and MLRS. And tanks, whatever shell they had, will always fight in direct contact, and here the skill of the crew will play a role, If our tank were so bad the whole west and I wouldn’t be afraid of it. And they are afraid and nervous when our tanks buy other countries.
    1. Siberia 9444
      Siberia 9444 4 February 2014 19: 49
      0
      Remember 1945! wink
  40. alone
    alone 4 February 2014 21: 54
    +2
    Until I see even a prototype tank of Armata, I have no moral right to say anything good or critical about it. But when it is finally shown, I think Rogozin should answer this question.
  41. orsker
    orsker 5 February 2014 01: 49
    0
    Oh, it’s faster already!
  42. dustycat
    dustycat 24 May 2015 08: 58
    0
    Quote: Civil
    Oh this is an eternal debate ... unitary and separate ...

    Wow ..
    Although...
    Why shoot a rocket from the barrel ?!
    What prevents missiles - cumulative, high explosive, anti-aircraft / fragmentation - from being placed in mines and even in inclined ones?
    Increasing the length of the nests in the automatic loader - this is clearly necessary.
    No questions.
    Uninhabited tower here to help.
    Although the separate charging machine will still be more complicated than a single-charge machine.
    Just by the logic of work.

    In addition, for a dozen of mono-charged "crowbars", you can simply attach a narrow armored cassette behind the tower - the main explosive there will be a powder charge - the consequences of its ignition are easier to eliminate and minimize.

    Say ten crowbars for a tank are not enough?
    And in a modern tank ammunition there are many more ?!
    Especially when Ukrainian tank crews shoot videos like they use BPS to make shrapnel-shrapnel improvised methods from improvised materials.

    PS: I wrote and thought.
    The same 4-8 multi-purpose missiles can be placed in vertical shafts in an uninhabited tower.
    And there is enough space for an automatic loader for mines.
    PPS: And for the convenience of maintenance / fire safety of an uninhabited tower, the same mine can be made quick-fired / fired.
    PPPS: oh, something happened to me, I dig a garden.