Tank guns 2А46М-5 and 2А46М-4

In 2006, the Uralvagonzavod for the first time showed the new T-72B2 tank, which was different from the previous vehicles of the family with a number of innovations. One of the main features of the new combat vehicle was the modernized gun 2А46М-5. This weapon with the ability to launch guided missiles is a further development of the 2А46 family of weapons and differs from older guns in a number of design features and associated characteristics. According to the official information of the Yekaterinburg Plant No. XXUMX, which created the 9А2М-46 cannon, the use of new technical solutions made it possible to significantly improve its characteristics and ensure superiority over the other weapons family.

It should be noted that the designers of "Plant No. 9" simultaneously developed two new modifications of the 2A46M gun: 2A46M-5 and 2A46M-4. These guns have several differences due to their purpose. The 2A46M-5 gun was proposed to be installed on the upgraded Tanks families T-72 and T-90, and 2A46M-4 was intended to equip machines T-80. The most noticeable difference between these guns is the different design of the left fence. The 2A46M-5 gun guard was designed with the use of the Tagil automatic loader, and the 2A46M-4 guards are compatible with the loading mechanism of the T-80 tank. All other components and assemblies of the guns are unified. Due to the minimal differences, we will further consider both guns using the 2A46M-5 as an example.

The new tank guns of both models are an upgraded version of the previous guns of the family, developed using several new ideas. The main methods for achieving higher performance are steel stiffness of the cantilever part of the barrel, improved dynamic balance of the gun, tightening tolerances in the manufacture of the barrel and an updated system for mounting the barrel in the cradle.

The 2А46М-5 can be mounted on the same mounting systems as the 2А46М. 2А46М-4, in turn, on the installation site is interchangeable with 2А46М-1. The most noticeable external difference of the updated guns is the device for accounting of trunk bends. The device itself is installed above the breech, and a reflector is mounted near the muzzle. The bending metering device determines the deviation of the barrel axis from the neutral position and sends this data to the fire control system. The use of barrel bending data in calculations allows one to increase the accuracy with intensive shooting and to compensate for barrel deformation caused by heating.

With the modernization of the large changes undergone cradle guns. So, to reduce the cantilever of the barrel, it was proposed to use a cradle with a neck extended by 160 mm. The modified neck has greater rigidity in comparison with the details of previous tools of the family. In addition, in the design of the cradle used the second prism sleeve of bronze.

In the 2А46М-5 / 2А46М-4 project, the tolerances on the geometry of the trunk are reduced. However, in the manufacture of tools, the formation of a backlash is possible when the barrel is installed in the cradle. For a snug fit in the cradle, the latter is equipped with two backlash devices, in the front and rear of the upper surface. The structure of each of these devices includes two sleeves with rollers, placed in special shafts in the cradle and pressed with screw plugs. Four rollers firmly press the barrel against the lower inner surface of the cradle and allow to get rid of the backlash.

The design of the supports for the sliding parts of the gun has been changed. The front support consists of two bronze annular bushes, the back consists of four rectangular overlays made of the same material. The rear support is transferred to the clip part of the cradle. Such improvements have improved the fixation of the trunk on the supports, as well as eliminate the overturning moment during the rollback.

The 2-46М-5 cradle is equipped with new devices for tank installation. In particular, new zero-clearance trunnion bearings with hollow rollers with an elastic surface were used. Such bearings reduce the backlash when the gun is installed, and also improve the fixing of the trunnions in the armored turret.

Like the previous armament of the family, the 2А46М-5 cannon is equipped with a smooth barrel of 125 mm caliber with a length of 6 m. The length of the charging chamber is 840 mm. To improve the accuracy of shooting, the upgraded guns received a barrel made with smaller tolerances. During the development of the project and production technologies, it was possible to optimize the trunk geometry with preservation of the required characteristics. Thus, the stiffness of the barrel tube increased by 10% to 420 kg / cm. In addition, the difference in wall thickness of the muzzle of the barrel at a length of 1 m is reduced. At the request of the customer, the barrel bore can be chrome-plated, which increases its life.

To simplify maintenance, the barrel of the 2А46М-5 is attached to the breech using a bayonet connection. When dismantling the barrel, it is required to put a special key on its octahedral part, turn the barrel to 45 ° and squeeze it out of the breech. Using a crane with a lifting capacity of up to 2 tons, the repair unit can replace the barrel in about 4 hours. It does not require dismantling of the tower, which is a characteristic feature of the 2А46М family tools.

During rollback, the overturning moment acts on the gun barrel. For its reduction in the design of the gun 2А46М-5 used recoil devices with a diagonal arrangement of the coil brake. One of them is in the upper right (when looking from the breech of the gun) part of the breech, the second - in the lower left. To the right of the lower brake is provided nakatnik. All hydraulic components of the implement are equipped with devices for visual control of the amount of fluid.

The aim of the 2А46М-5 / 2А46М-4 projects was to improve the performance of the fire. The main characteristics, such as the firing range or the power of ammunition, remained at the same level or depend on the type of projectile used. At the same time, the accuracy characteristics increased significantly. In comparison with the 2А46М, the accuracy of shooting was increased by 17-20%. The total dispersion when shooting in motion is reduced by a factor of 1,7.

The 2А46М-5 and 2А46М-4 cannons can use the entire range of 125-mm ammunition for the 2А46 family of guns. In addition, they can be used as a launcher for guided missiles of the Cobra and Reflex complexes. Improving the characteristics of the gun allows you to increase the effectiveness of the fire, even when using existing ammunition.

The 2А46М-5 and 2А46М-4 cannons are designed for installation on T-72, T-90 and T-80 tanks. It is possible to mount weapons not only on new combat vehicles, but also on existing equipment during its repair and modernization. According to some reports, in the 2006-2007, the modernized 2А46М-5 / 2А46М-4 gun was adopted by the Russian army and installed on new tanks.

Based on:
http://zavod9.com/
http://army-guide.com/
http://computerland-spb.ru/images/pdf_uvz/Guns_spreads.pdf

Comments

[Dmitry 2246]

The tank friends had fired well before, and now the accuracy of firing in motion is almost doubled.
The first shots are very important in battle.
Pleasing maintainability of the guns and yet what is the resource of the chrome barrel?

[Hammer]

Different guns are needed, different guns are important! Good news, more aiming range - more amount of enemy armored vehicles burning on the battlefield.

[Max_Bauder]

Quote: Hammer

Different guns are needed, different guns are important

I agree, guns always took cities and decided the outcome of the battle. More precisely, not its presence but the ability to use it wisely. Constantinople was destroyed by a cannon, America was conquered by a cannon and Napoleon defeated by a cannon. Artillery is the queen of the fields (even in our missile time).

[Solaris]

"Artillery-God of War" sign in Simferopol at the entrance to the military unit
"Infantry queen of the fields" ... something like that
And the improvement of the cannons for the tank makes it even cooler and more accurate, therefore
more tenacious. Our tankers would appreciate it would be faster on stream ...

[Max_Bauder]

Quote: Solaris

"Infantry queen of the fields" ... something like that

Well, when they went to the bayonet in Borodino

and right now the infantry is meat.

Artillery is the queen, and God is the yars, a poplar with a nuclear warhead. Well, something like this

[Jager]

Except for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the nuclear "club" was not used anywhere, although there were darkness after 45. The infantry has been "meat" at all times. But only infantry can hold the captured territory, unlike tanks.

[Vittt]

We ask in the studio of the gentleman Kars.

[Alekseev]

Quote: Dmitry 2246

now almost doubles the accuracy of shooting in motion.

You hurried it up!
The accuracy of firing in motion depends mainly on the characteristics of the STV (tank weapon stabilizer) , and depends on the quality of production of the barrel TP accuracyIt is determined when shooting from a place.
Modernization of the gun is an important and good thing! But just as there was a 2A26 D-81 gun, so did the 2A46M5. Revolution, first and foremost in power, no.
For new vehicles (MBT on the Armat platform), it seems like a 125-mm 2A82 is being prepared ... Apparently, its characteristics would be higher, but a real breakthrough in the power of ammunition would give a larger caliber (152-mm). Moreover, such tools and loading mechanisms for them have long been tested. (vol. 292)

[Aleks tv]

Quote: Alekseev

The accuracy of firing in motion depends mainly on the characteristics of the STV (tank weapon stabilizer)

Lesh -

[Vittt]

As I understand it, our Ukrainian comrade Kars doesn’t get in touch, there are probably reasons for this. His adequate comments on tanks were understandable and acceptable to me. Current comments do not yet have for me personally the same weight as Karsa. No praise, always happy with clever comments on military topics. Unfortunately, cool technical reviews and discussions are turning into political srach.

[Aleks tv]

Quote: Dmitry 2246

and now almost doubles the accuracy of shooting in motion.

Well, a little startled, Dmitry ...

Quote: Dmitry 2246

what is the resource of the chrome barrel?

So it depends on what ...
PF and Kum - one wear.
With a crowbar - the channel will make a swoop.

[Dmitry 2246]

Thanks for the reply.
You do not often read about the competent use of tanks.
I didn’t use the tanks, but it wasn’t behind him either.
Before the shot, the tankers signaled to the covering group - well, very "loudly".
And so under the article: "At the same time, the accuracy characteristics have noticeably increased. In comparison with the 2A46M gun, the accuracy of fire is increased by 17-20%. The total dispersion when firing in motion is reduced by 1,7 times."

[opus]

Quote: Dmitry 2246

still what is the resource of the chrome barrel

ND
And for a rifle like this:
The survivability of small arms trunks reaches 10 - 12 thousand shots, and chrome plated - up to 30 thousand shots
The type (mass) of the shot strongly depends on:
when firing from 125-mm guns (D-81) OFS barrel resource - 350 shots,
and when firing a caliber projectile - 150 shots.

[Crang]

The best tank guns in the world today. Very reliable. And most importantly - interchangeable with guns 2A46, 2A46M (2A46-1), 2A46M-1 (2A46-2). That is, they can be installed even in the basic T-72 "Ural".

[Mountain shooter]

Well done Pushkari! Most importantly, excellent results were obtained in accuracy and in movement.
And maintainability is complete. 72 is not a bad tank at all. Combining all the modernization, taking into account the number of them in the troops, is a very correct and economical business.

[voyaka uh]

Why do you think they are the best in the world?
Do they have the best ballistics? In previous generations
guns of the T-72 tanks were strong barrel vibrations
(insufficient rigidity), which led to guaranteed misses
when firing at distances of more than 2 km. This was checked in Israel.
Now stiffness, as written in the article, increased by 10%. This is enough?

[Sobol]

Quote: voyaka uh

Why do you think they are the best in the world?
Do they have the best ballistics? In previous generations
guns of the T-72 tanks were strong barrel vibrations
(insufficient rigidity), which led to guaranteed misses
when firing at distances of more than 2 km. This was checked in Israel.
Now stiffness, as written in the article, increased by 10%. This is enough?

At least it's 10% better than it was.

[Crang]

Quote: voyaka uh

Do they have the best ballistics?

Well, in general, one of the best. It is, so to speak, sufficient to defeat any existing tanks.

Quote: voyaka uh

In previous generations
guns of the T-72 tanks were strong barrel vibrations
(insufficient rigidity)

There were vibrations, but not strong.

Quote: voyaka uh

resulting in guaranteed misses
when firing at distances of more than 2 km.

Right to guaranteed? Maybe it just reduced the chance of a hit? Moreover, this applies to the first 2A46 on the base T-72 and T-64A. For example, the T-72B has a completely different gun - 2A46M.

Quote: voyaka uh

Now stiffness, as written in the article, increased by 10%. This is enough?

Yes. Here are the comparative firing from the old and new (relatively) guns:

[voyaka uh]

"Directly to guaranteed? Maybe it just reduced the probability of hitting?" ////

Take a look at your drawing "target tank in profile". The old cannon has 5 out of 10 shells
missed the target. But usually they shoot at the "target tank in front". It is smaller.
And the gun of the old model would make 2-3 hits out of 10. Given that the first
2 shells at decent distances of 2,5 -3 km - usually sighting, then 10 fugitives
shells could be a miss ...

[Crang]

You look and don’t see. The figure shows the comparative results of a 125mm gun base T-72 2A46, which really had poor accuracy and the newer 125mm 2A46M cannon, which is installed on the T-72B. This one you know as "old". And in the article we are talking about 2A46M-5, which is even more accurate than the one in the figure that is 1,7 times better. Clear?

[Alekseev]

Quote: Krang

the results of a 125mm gun base T-72 2A46,

The very basic 125 mm TP was called factory 2A26, military D-81, like the 2A46M gun (see above)
Shot from those and these.
There is no very significant difference in accuracy. Yes, and to notice this very accuracy it is necessary to conduct tests according to a certain methodology.
Verbs about some tests in Izratl, which revealed insufficient rigidity - theoretical reasoning.
A much more significant effect on the accuracy of the battle is the wear of the barrel and a number of factors, for example, the lack of selection of o / f shells by weight.
But really, from the spot on 1600-1800 m, three shells from a cannon reduced to a normal battle (that 2А26, that 2А46) can be put in a circle with a diameter of 1 m.
In addition, old guns were released when there were no "effective managers" yet, which had a positive effect on the accuracy of the battle ...
In general, as he wrote earlier, the guns are good, the modernization is necessary, but for a qualitative leap, a new gun is needed. And it already exists, but not in the series and not in the troops.

[Aleks tv]

Quote: Alekseev

But really, from the spot on 1600-1800 m, three shells from a cannon reduced to a normal battle (that 2А26, that 2А46) can be put in a circle with a diameter of 1 m.

Yeah, Lesh.
2A46M, if she is cared for in time with a chromic peak with ammonium, make a reconciliation, shoot sensibly and intelligently set corrections - sniper to 1800 - 2500 even in motion up to 20-30 km / h.

The most gusto of 2A46M-5 is:
- In the neck of the cradle there are two additional backlash selectors, which removes the play in the pins to ZERO.
-reinforcement of trunnion clips in the tower with a reverse wedge.

Beauty ...

[Aleks tv]

Quote: Alekseev

A much more significant effect on the accuracy of the battle is the wear of the barrel and a number of factors, for example, the lack of selection of o / f shells by weight.

Do you remember how you picked "+++" or "---" into one b / c?
And how was the punishment book swearing at the nomograms?
For fun it was ... wah.

[Alekseev]

Quote: voyaka uh

Given that the first
2 shells at decent distances of 2,5 -3 km - usually sighting

Usually tanks do not shoot at such distances.
And the sighting (in your understanding of this word) is made by artillery from the PDO.
If you think that instead of a sheaf of fire and a cloud of dust, you will clearly see into the tank sight (the best) where the projectile launched by you flies, then you are severely mistaken.

[voyaka uh]

How so? If the first shell did not hit the target, you need to know which
enter the amendment: left, right, down ... For this, there is a LMS.
She on the previous shell gives an amendment for the next.
And after two or three attempts, you need to change the position, otherwise they will cover.
And everything is new.

[Alekseev]

Quote: voyaka uh

How so?

To understand how, you must personally participate in the process. In Israel, this should not be a problem if desired.
The amendment (the one you are talking about) is introduced not by the LMS, but by the gunner in the figures of the target, etc.
Reduced to a normal battle, a modern tank should fall on its actual range the first time. If, of course, the aiming point is selected correctly , which is important, especially in motion.
Well, the gunner and commander do not see where the shell hit?
Often, yes. Especially in dusty areas.
But what about them, poor fellow?
And there is such a Russian expression: somehow, something. As a Tula Lefty without a "melkoscope" he shod an English flea.
You must try not to dodge your face when rolling back from possible damage, do not squint, but try to fix the fact of a shell hit with an "keen eye". At the same time, the commander's position is somewhat better, he can tell the flight, undershoot, by how much, but very approximately.
But once again I repeat that the precisely guided, brought to normal battle, cannon of a modern tank with a correctly adjusted MSA should hit the target from the first shot and does not require any adjustments.

[voyaka uh]

"How a Tula Lefty without a" small scope "shod an English flea." ////

Only she didn’t jump anymore if you reread Leskov’s story ...

From the first shell it’s from 1600 m. We are fighting from 2,5 - 3,5 km. And sometimes
and more. Therefore, they teach, as it were, artillery shooting. This happened
a tradition due to the fact that for a long time the IDF existed without artillery.
Instead, tankers had to work.

[Alekseev]

Quote: voyaka uh

Only she didn’t jump anymore

And when shooting, you do not need to "jump", just shoe.
Artillery firing is taught (though not in full) everywhere.
The tank has a lateral level and an azimuth indicator.
But for shooting half-line and, moreover, not direct fire, a rifled gun and fire control devices are slightly different.
And adjust the fire in this case by radio (at the training ground at the control tower) with the NP.

[Forest]

Now in our troops the initial distance of firing has been brought to 2200 m. But our conditions are different.

[goose]

There is no such thing as a guaranteed miss.
The increase in stiffness, at least, changed the period of oscillation of the barrel. I recall that the oscillations have a maximum size if the period of the disturbing oscillation and the natural period of oscillation of the trunk are close. There are resonant phenomena. Depending on the nature of the oscillations, a change in the oscillation period of one of the interacting systems can greatly enhance the attenuation of the oscillations of the entire system (at close frequencies, the quality factor of the oscillatory system is maximum, i.e., the minimum energy is lost per cycle). When the oscillation frequency of one of the systems changes by 10%, the quality factor can decrease by 1,4 times. This is proportional to the reduction of the damping time to an acceptable level.

I understand that your post is more devoted to the fact that this gun is not rifled, but smooth-bore, which increases the standard deviation at maximum firing distances of 2,5-4 km, BUT ... reduces the weight of the barrel, increases the initial speed, increases the resource of the barrel. I do not think that accuracy is weak at a distance of 2 km - it reaches a target point of 1,5 km. And the drum in the wind, humidity and other parameters, if you shoot once a minute.
That is, due to some increase in accuracy, so many advantages. And ... the main plus is the cumulative shells. Their effectiveness decreases markedly when firing a rifled gun, even if expensive bearing shells are used.

[voyaka uh]

"And ... the main plus is cumulative shells" ////

I did not know that Russian tanks are now using Kumm against a tank. shells.
Their penetration is insufficient with a caliber of 120-125 mm for
breaking through the frontal armor of modern tanks. Therefore, they use OBPS.
In general, rifled guns are always more accurate than smooth-bore guns.
OBPS required a smooth barrel to increase the speed of the projectile, but
accuracy dropped. The Israelis were very fond of the COP. Even from 4 km, the 105 mm tank gun hit very accurately (for the COP, the distance is not important). But the forehead "got fat" plus DZ ... I had to switch to OBPS, like everyone else.

[Lopatov]

Quote: voyaka uh

Their penetration is insufficient with a caliber of 120-125 mm for
breaking through the frontal armor of modern tanks.

What about modern armored personnel carriers? Why shoot the barrel, hitting a lightly armored target with a "crowbar"?

By the way, are there no HEAT shells in the Merkava BC?

[voyaka uh]

There are, but, strictly speaking, they are not anti-tank. This is the so-called. "universal"
a shell. High-explosive armor-piercing with a programmable fuse.
What will be the shot, the shooter (or commander) decides when the shell
already lies in the trunk. They are just against all kinds of armored personnel carriers, bunkers, walls of houses.
But such a projectile will not penetrate the forehead of an enemy tank. Here you need a "crowbar".

[Crang]

Quote: voyaka uh

I did not know that Russian tanks are now using Kumm against a tank. shells.

Use both BOPS and KS. Who likes more.

Quote: voyaka uh

Their penetration is insufficient with a caliber of 120-125 mm for
breaking through the frontal armor of modern tanks.

In the region of 700mm. How to say.

Quote: voyaka uh

In general, rifled guns are always more accurate than smooth-bore guns.

The truth is so.

Quote: voyaka uh

OBPS required a smooth barrel to increase the speed of the projectile, but
accuracy has fallen.

This is not the BOPS demanded, but just the cumulative shells. At the turn of the 50s / 60s, when tanks did not yet have effective protection against the "kuma", it was believed that the future lay with these shells. Later, as it evolved, it turned out that BOPSs are more effective. At least up to 2-2,5 km.

[Max_Bauder]

Quote: voyaka uh

voyaka uh


Today, 16: 47

↑ ↓ New


Why do you think they are the best in the world?

I think two T-72s with such fluff will "make up" one merkava 4, do you agree? one distracts at speed, the other fires. Why two? at cost.

[voyaka uh]

I do not know. I can’t answer you ... Problems of Russian tanks at all
not even a gun, but SLAs and shells.
Israelis tend to shoot from long distances from a place.
And the fight is carried out on the "reverse" in a zigzag, trying not to get close. Hardly from such
T-72 distances will generally open fire - this is pointless without getting close.

[Lopatov]

Quote: voyaka uh

It is unlikely that such
T-72 distances will generally open fire - this is pointless without getting close.

That is, "Merkavas" operate at ranges of more than 5 km?

[voyaka uh]

5 km - the maximum distance on the exercises of shooters. Gotta get in
from a stationary tank in the afternoon to the target "tank" from the 2nd round.
But not everyone can reach 5 km after dropping out. Such shooters, "snipers" are taken
into the Com.rot tanks for "safety net" on the battlefield.
Normal distances are 3-4 km.

[Lopatov]

Quote: voyaka uh

Such shooters, "snipers"

We have easier, we have guided missiles.

[voyaka uh]

We too. It is called "Lahat". Also with laser
backlight. The Indians bought it for their "Arjun".
But, you know, don’t rely on them too much. News like that
5 km shell even with Merkava-4 optics is not an easy thing, long and dreary.
and with T-72 optics ...
At 2 km - probably yes, it will. In any case, breakdown power
that Lahata, that your projectile is not very large (caliber limits).
Even if you hit, it does not mean - killed.

[Lopatov]

Quote: voyaka uh

In any case, breakdown power
that Lahata, that your shell is not very large

The sub-caliber at this range is even smaller.

Quote: voyaka uh

News like that
5 km shell even with Merkava-4 optics is not an easy thing, long and dreary.
and with T-72 optics ...

Quite the opposite. A good ATGM operator is one who can guide a target at short ranges, managing not to disrupt guidance. It's much easier on larger ones. Because geometry. The further the target is, the angular velocity is lower, the further the target, more time is needed to, for example, redirect the missile to another object. In the end, it takes more time to "release" the post-launch jitters, which are inevitable for inexperienced operators. As for the optics ... How are you sure that it is bad? Or at least worse than the Merkava?

[voyaka uh]

I looked at the tank biathlon. There were distances of 1,6, 1,8 km, it seems.
If even from such distances missed, then most likely something is wrong with the sights.

[V. shooter]

Quote: voyaka uh

News like that
How are you sure that it is bad? Or at least worse than the Merkava?

He believes that the merkav sight is kosher :) but t hee no

[V. shooter]

Markovka is a tank against not determined partisans. Extremely heavy (Jewish after all, like a machine gun with a crooked muzzle), and over the terrain like a rock sticks out. It will go against macaques, in a combined arms battle with a normal enemy on rough terrain ... And in fact, on the march there is nothing (nor off-road speed), it is not possible to quickly transfer (bridges, railway platforms). A 4 km shot is nonsense, not only in a cluster of macaques.

[V. shooter]

Yes, a missile shoots for 5 km, which is shot through the T 72+ barrel. Marking for 5 km do. If you see .... do not believe it, look out the window for 4 km, see a tank, building green, etc.? In fact, only in the desert and in the steppe can you shoot for 4 km from the tank. No tanks work for 4 km.

[Aleks tv]

Quote: Max_Bauder

I think two T-72s with such fluff will "make up" one merkava 4, do you agree?

And what does Markovka have to do with it?
Why show off?

The tactics of using tanks and the coordinated fire control of the WHOLE crew "do" the enemy.
And if we look narrowly, as you think (ie from the point of view of the gunner), then in order to "beat" the enemy, you need a set of modernization measures:
- Aiming complex,
- Control systems,
- A gun,
- AZ,
- Ammunition.

Everything is in the COMPLEX, and only in this way, which is now trying to do. Changes to "fluff" alone are not enough.

[Jager]

If my memory serves me, the Arabs were supplied with export T-72s with "cut down" armor, simpler equipment and with a smaller range of ammunition. "Arab" cars already at that time (70s-80s) had very average indicators, and only after 30 years ...
I dare say that the need for a specialized "assault" tank is long overdue, classic "field" vehicles are poorly adapted for urban battles. It would be interesting to know the opinion of our "specialists" on this score.

[Aleks tv]

Quote: Jager

If my memory serves me, the Arabs were supplied with export T-72s with "reduced" armor, simpler equipment and a smaller range of ammunition.

Andrei, EVERYTHING was cut there.
From armor to simple crowbars.
And if a mechanical ballistic calculator coped fairly well with its duties, then ...
Optical rangefinder - it was completely shaitan trouble ............
Hit the target on the move - it’s practically not possible, you need a drop dead skill and excellent knowledge of the mat.
I tried to spin this "koyosiko" myself on the go.

Quote: Jager

the need for a specialized "assault" tank is long overdue, classic "field" vehicles are poorly adapted for urban battles.

A tank in a city battle, if properly and properly prepared, is not very bad.
Moreover - without it there will be absolutely seams.
It's all about the tactics of its application.
The tank in the conditions of urban battle should be in the FIRE SUPPORT GROUP of the assault unit, and not rush like a heroin mother in the center of the street.
A competent "Christmas tree" will ruffle any city defense.
Currently, there are "urban kits" for the T-72B, not space, of course, but already something.
And the creation of a specialized assault tank ...
I would like, of course, but until he has created a certain universality of application on other TVDs, no one will make such a highly specialized machine, Sorry ...

But even at present it is possible to build a very robust "Christmas tree" from T-72B (city), BMPT, BMP-T and BMP-3, which will solve almost all tasks of direct fire support of the Assault group. (plus artillery, of course)

[voyaka uh]

"Optical rangefinder - it was completely shaitan-trouble ............
To hit the target on the move is almost impossible, you need an awesome skill "////

Well, this coincides with what the grandfathers-veterans of the 73 year war say.
The Arabs struggled toward rapprochement without firing. And Israeli
tankers, hiding in the folds of the locality, showered them with shells (CS), starting already from 3 - 3.5 km. The fact is that even on the plateau and desert there are all kinds of ravines, imperceptible from afar. Well, ditches, of course.
Tanks stop there, looking for passages, traffic jams immediately form. There they were mostly covered. When close combat began at 1-1.5 km (already on an equal footing), the Arabs had less than 1/3 of their tanks in good order. And the Israelis were only "warmed up and shot" without loss. The only problem was the transportation of shells.
The centurions spent two or three sets of shells per battle. The consumption of shells was very large. Transportation teams engaged in maintenance.

[Crang]

The only thing you need to develop new heavy-duty OFS. And then the old light. Only 23kg. 122mm OFS OF-472 T-10M tank weighed more than 27kg.

[samoletil18]

Quote: voyaka uh

Why do you think they are the best in the world?

Well, "Merkava", for example, makes holes when meeting.

[voyaka uh]

Merkava and T had their only meeting in Lebanon in 1982.
These were Merkava-1 and T-62. It was a counter battle in the highlands
at a very short distance (less than a kilometer). There were breaks
armor and losses on both sides. For Israel, it was a good result,
since the tankers did not die (for this, the project "merkava" was started).
In addition, it was, so to speak, the "first pancake" of the Israeli tank industry.
The Syrians, too, seemed to be satisfied.

[samoletil18]

Useful information. All the years I was sure that the Merkavas in Lebanon converged with the T-72. Although, there is a significant difference between the T-62 and T-55 (they are placed side by side only because they are average), which characterizes the "Merkava" well.

[Crang]

Quote: samoletil18

Well, "Merkava", for example, makes holes when meeting.

At least one Merkava was destroyed by a T-62. And the T-62 managed to shoot down a UH-1 "Hugh Cobra" helicopter.

[erased]

It seems that a gun 2A82 was created for Almaty. This is much more relevant, given the fact that the tank itself will soon enter the series. At least I have to ...

[Dimka off]

I regret that it’s not a 152 mm gun. Although the tank is modular, so everything is probably possible to do in a short time.

[Salkrast]

another tuning. nothing new. For 40 years they’ve been producing a gun.

[Lopatov]

Tuning is, for example, installing a rectangular "fashionable" thermal casing. And any, even minimal, change in characteristics gives a new weapon

[Salkrast]

fastened a new molding to the Lada and got a new car

[Oblozelo]

and you and Lada "Kopeyka" will not receive

[Vadim12]

Such a cannon on Soviet IS would be put in the Great Patriotic War ... I wonder how history would develop ...

[zyablik.olga]

Quote: Vadim12

Such a cannon on the Soviet IS would be put in the Great Patriotic War ...

And to each infantry division in 1941 in RPG-7, and to each platoon according to ATGM ...

[Crang]

Quote: Vadim12

Such a cannon on Soviet IS would be put in the Great Patriotic War ... I wonder how history would develop ...

What for? And their full-time 122mm D-25T conventional caliber BS easily destroyed any German tank at any distance. The guns of the D-25T series were quite relevant until about the end of the 50s, the middle of the 60s.

[Mama_Cholli]

And ours smeared in a tank biathlon from which gun (and then cut the penalty circles) from the old or modernized?

[Steel loli]

From this modernized and oiled.
It was necessary to buy Chinese guns, they are more accurate.

[Crang]

Katya guns this is our old 2A46 and 2A46M from the T-72A and T-72B. But thanks to the cool SLA, they also beat out of the old gun for sure.

[Mama_Cholli]

Quote: Krang

Katya guns this is our old 2A46 and 2A46M from the T-72A and T-72B. But thanks to the cool SLA, they also beat out of the old gun for sure.

Are our not able to make normal OMS?

Just like by analogy with the Second World War, when ours "aimed through the barrel," and the Germans' Zeiss optics made it possible to hit targets almost at the limit of the shot distance.
Moreover, our own admitted that from the move it was possible to hit a moving target only up to 500 m, unlike 1500 m for German tankmen.
Well, why is it always like this with us?

[Salkrast]

Are our not able to make normal OMS? - it just needs to be taken and done, i.e. this needs to be addressed. biathlon just like a litmus test showed the slanting of existing equipment.

[Angolaforever]

Moreover, our own admitted that from the move it was possible to hit a moving target only up to 500 m, unlike 1500 m for German tankmen.
Really there were stabilizers in the Second World War so that on the move to hit a moving target at 500 or 1500 meters?

[samoletil18]

In 1942 at the Aberdeen training ground, Americans studied the T-34 and KV. Our sights were rated very highly, if not for the quality of the glass, we would call them the best in the world. For obvious reasons, at that time we were welcomed to such glass. They aimed through the barrel when the sight was damaged, and not because of its qualities.

[brn521]

With sights, we did not matter. At the beginning of the war, we lost the Izyum plant, and for a long time we could not restore normal production. For the T-34 1942. this is generally far from the best period. Instead of optics, some kind of plexiglass, giving a muddy, uneven picture. Instead of rubber - nothing, it simply was not enough. Bandages and seals to a minimum, in the rain the tank flowed like a sieve. Part of the rollers, or all at all, with internal shock absorption, due to which, despite the absence of a silencer, the first thing that was heard when approaching such a T-34 was a wild clang of tracks. The internal ventilation is bad, there were no electric motors for the fans provided by the design. With intense shooting, the loader quickly died away.
It is unlikely that the Americans showed exactly such a tank at the training ground.

[brn521]

Did not have. They only shot from a stop. On the move, such a chatter went that only the sky and the earth were alternately visible in the sight. The long-barrel T-34-85 generally scooped up the earth while muzzle, which led to the rupture of the trunk.

[Crang]

Quote: Mama_Cholli

Just like by analogy with the Second World War, when ours "aimed through the barrel," and the Germans' Zeiss optics made it possible to hit targets almost at the limit of the shot distance.

Bullshit. The instrumentation equipment of our WWII tanks was in many ways better than the German ones.

Quote: Mama_Cholli

Moreover, our own admitted that from the move it was possible to hit a moving target only up to 500 m, unlike 1500 m for German tankmen.

And this is nonsense. Not a single German tank in the Second World War had stabilizers and therefore could not shoot aimingly on the move. But some Soviet tanks - such as the T-26, BT-5, BT-7 had a stabilized sight with a shot resolution block, which allowed them to conduct fairly effective fire from the move at low speed. American tanks of the M4 "Sherman" family also had stabilizers.

[brn521]

Quote: Krang

Bullshit. The instrumentation equipment of our WWII tanks was in many ways better than the German ones.

A real T-34 is a T-34-85, or at least a T-34-76 with a commander’s turret. What came before this is a cruel compromise between necessity and opportunity. We really lost our tanks in the hundreds, including because we could neither properly equip them, nor prepare the crews.

[Crang]

Quote: brn521

A real T-34 is a T-34-85, or at least a T-34-76 with a commander’s turret.

And I honestly thought that the opposite. In the 41st, the base models T-34 and KV-1 were the best in the world and German cuttlefish of the Pz.II / III type could not do anything against them. But in 1944, even the T-34-85 was no longer the last word in technology.

[52]

Friend, teach the materiel, because there are still books and historical documents! Well, at least read Svirin and Kolomiyets! (But I don’t particularly recommend Baryatinsky, like Shirokorada, they are juggling their mother!)

[brn521]

This is the historians threw minuses? I do not agree with them. If you know the story, you know what our tankers were taught in terms of history in the 70s. As usual, we are the best in the world, our technology is the best in the world, etc.

Quote: Krang

In the 41st, the base models T-34 and KV-1 were the best in the world and German cuttlefish of the Pz.II / III type could not do anything against them.

Yes, when it was possible to use our tanks for their intended purpose, powerful armor and weapons were justified. But the problem is that it was never managed to be used.
There were serious problems with the transmission. Primitive gearbox, dry clutches that require physical strength and do not forgive mistakes. 200 km without serious damage is a good result. The Germans were doing much better.
And huge, simply crushing problems with tactics and strategy. Almost all the equipment was lost on the march at the beginning of the war for technical and organizational reasons (breakdowns, lack of fuel, ammunition, low moral level due to general confusion). Armor and weapons were never used in business. An example of how a political showdown and poor governance can bury any army than arm it.

Quote: Krang

But in 1944, even the T-34-85 was no longer the last word in technology.

Nevertheless, it was already a real T-34, finally brought to mind. Good dynamics, acceptable armor, powerful weapons, good visibility. All the potential laid down by the construction was finally realized.

[Crang]

Quote: Mama_Cholli

Well, why is it always like this with us?

How? We had better than the Germans. No need to water shit your dear fatherland. This does not lead to anything good. Know how to distinguish sound criticism of indiscriminate shit watering.

[Jager]

If we mean the Stalingrad "thirty-fours" of the fall of 42nd, then yes. It's good that the sights were generally there. But it was only a short period of time, the T-34-85 was equipped with modern and in no way inferior to Zeiss sights. But the quality of the Germans towards the end of the war decreased markedly.

If you don’t believe me, google the comparative tests of the accuracy of the battle of the IS-2 and Pz.VIB guns.

[ramin_serg]

Yes, the Germans had worse armor and steel but

1, guidance devices
2, Convenience of aiming and introducing fire
3, crew training
4, accuracy and rate of fire + the introduction of aimed fire on the go

were much better with the Germans

and the rest of the parameters, especially the simplicity and reliability of the engine and the chassis, were excellent, and in the end the number of tanks was yes, and we were on top

[Crang]

Quote: ramin_serg

1, guidance devices

In ours, they were much better. The Americans, too. No worse, at least.

Quote: ramin_serg

2, Convenience of aiming and introducing fire

Our largest and most comfortable tanks that took part in the Second World War were the tanks of the KV-1 and KV-1C series. Especially KV-85.

Quote: ramin_serg

3, crew training

The only thing that the Germans really had was better.

Quote: ramin_serg

4, accuracy and rate of fire + the introduction of aimed fire on the go

Our tanks had better accuracy. Rate of fire - somewhere parity. Targeted shooting from the move is again better with ours. If only because some of ours already had stabilizers, but German tanks did not have them until the very end of the war.

[K-50]

Quote: Mama_Cholli

Moreover, our own admitted that from the move it was possible to hit a moving target only up to 500 m, unlike 1500 m for German tankmen.

As far as I read the memoirs of the Panzerwaffe, it was forbidden for them to shoot at tanks on the move in order to avoid the excessive use of armor-piercing shells. It was possible to fire only from a short stop (on the go, aim, stop, homing and shot)

[Aleks tv]

Quote: Mama_Cholli

Moreover, our own admitted that from the move it was possible to hit a moving target only up to 500 m, unlike 1500 m for German tankmen.

Have you come up with?
Well, well.

And I'm not talking about range ...

[voyaka uh]

In the 2 World War, an enemy was usually hit with a third shell in a tank battle. But only
from place. Shooting on the move - production films for propaganda (in all armies).
Even with the stabilizers that appeared during the war, they fired from stops.
Awful disclosure: IDF tankmen with one of the most well-wired SLAs and a gun
with a bunch of sensors and now shoot from short stops. Because release into milk
a projectile costing a Toyota Camry is somehow silly. Only in "hand-to-hand" - shootout
at distances of less than 1,5 km practiced shooting on the move.

[Aleks tv]

Quote: voyaka uh

In the 2 World War, an enemy was usually hit with a third shell in a tank battle. But only
from place. Shooting on the go - production films for propaganda

As it were, yes, of course they shot with a short one, when they kicked the mechanic with a boot.
But on the fly - it was also a matter, there were cases.
We stopped the gun vertically at the "direct shot range" and made the maximum possible rate of fire, twisting only the horizontal.
And in the case of more or less flat terrain - they worked on the move ...

Well, the Kulibins were our grandfathers ...

[brn521]

Quote: voyaka uh

Shooting on the go - production films for propaganda

Not only movie clips. On the move, they did shoot, but not with the aim of falling into something specifically. And especially not against German tanks. Just in time for about 43g. we began to have enough shells, the Germans appeared more effective anti-tank guns. When assaulting positions equipped with such guns, they were shot at on the move. During a mass assault, it seems that even a special order was received, firing on the go. Here and psychology, and in both directions. It’s more difficult for Germans to resist tanks if their guns are directed towards them and fire. A couple of explosions are nearby and you get the feeling that the next shell is yours. Even if you are a hero, all the same your hands will begin to shake, the jitters will overwhelm, you will look and you will miss the tank. From the side of the tankers is also a plus. They attack almost blindly. To stop and look around is equivalent to turning a car into a crematorium. Even on the go, you can get hit at any time. And this moment is much easier to experience if you, in response, portray meaningful activity, rather than waiting without will, carry, will not carry. Just in time for this period, tankers recalled that in the first battle they shot all the ammunition completely. In this situation, stop every time - you will burn the clutches nafig. And of course, accident can sometimes help out. There are also moments in battles when a German machine gunner from 50 meters caught his forehead with a bullet fired from a TT, etc. Fragments, all the more so, wherever they fly, sometimes it’s a pure lottery. Therefore, the more HE shots, the better.

[goose]

Accuracy depends not only on the LMS. At least 50% of the gunner. Look at the difference between different crews on the same tanks !!!
It also depends on barrel wear, the exact overhang of the powder and its stable characteristics (propelling charges should be from the same batch), heating, delay time + damping parameters (including the adjustment of the stabilizer), reconciliation of the gun, pressure, speed and direction wind, humidity.
Some of them can be easily flashed into the LMS, some are difficult (so there’s no one in the troops to do this).

[Lopatov]

Quote: goose

Some of them can be flashed easily in the LMS, partly difficult

In theory, all this can be easily taken into account. For example, the deviation of the initial velocity of the projectile due to a batch of charge, or the deviation of the weight sign can easily be taken into account by installing microchips with this information on the shells / charges.

They will be able to help with a rough calculation of the deflection n / s due to wear of the barrel, in the memory of the FCS there will remain the number and type of shot shells. Exactly, starting from the second shell, with the help of a ballistic station

Quote: goose

delay time + soothing parameters (including the setting of the stabilizer)

A system of sensors is already installed on the modernized "Solntsepёka", which ensures the launch exactly when the axis of the rail coincides with the required angle and turn. There, a lot of resonance phenomena occur at the package when firing, and this system stops all this. So this task can be easily solved with the help of the LMS.

Quote: goose

so there’s no one in the army to do this)

Ideal army equipment should have one toggle switch. The fewer actions (reconciliation checks) will need to be carried out in the troops, the better.

[Denimax]

I noticed that the Chinese fired BOPS. Probably because of the best ballistics, there will be a higher probability of hitting. IMHO

[Crang]

From the old. 2A46M. And the Chinese Type-96A from the same old 2A46M knocked out all the glasses.

[flSergius]

Baissi, abrams?

[wanderer_032]

If from such a distance the tank really began to fall similar on its own, that's good.
But immediately for some reason I recall the T-72B3 and its workplace as a commander with a TKN, and not with some more advanced device, stabilized in 2 planes, as well as with a thermal imaging channel and HB in passive mode.
The tank is still "blind" for such distances, especially at night and in poor visibility conditions. And twisting the whole tower just to find the target is not always ... ghmmm ... to put it mildly, perhaps. Because real tank battle is not a network tank game.
And although everything is developed and there are opportunities to produce.

[Salkrast]

a little incomprehensible picture. armor-piercing the tank at distances above 2000 it makes no sense to shoot, because the energy of the projectile is lost. except that on board (as shown in the picture). Biathlon practice shows that they smear from distances of two smaller than those indicated in the picture.

[ramin_serg]

The Azerbaijani T-72 Tanks have Israeli sights (for which the Israelis take very expensive) which allow targeted fire at tanks over distances up to 4500 m (the target is clearly visible day and night in an infrared sight)

[Salkrast]

Well, do not wishful thinking. ordinary 72ki bulls and ashka you. and all sorts of Israeli sights most likely in a demo-advertising version on one machine

[wanderer_032]

Quote: Salkrast

Well, do not wishful thinking. ordinary 72ki bulls and ashka you. and all sorts of Israeli sights most likely in a demo-advertising version on one machine

In the Georgian T-72, there were Israeli surveillance devices and SLAs, why can’t they order in Azerbaijan?

[ramin_serg]

unlike you, I sat in these tanks and aimed from these sights

[Aleks tv]

Quote: ramin_serg

The Azerbaijani T-72 Tanks have Israeli sights (for which the Israelis take very expensive) which allow targeted fire at tanks over distances up to 4500 m (the target is clearly visible day and night in an infrared sight)

Quote: ramin_serg

unlike you, I sat in these tanks and aimed from these sights

Good day, Ramin.
A year ago, there was a small discussion on the modernization of T-72B in Azerbaijan.
http://topwar.ru/29198-azerbaydzhanskiy-variant-modernizacii-tanka-t-72-do-urovn
ya-aslan.html #
And I'm still interested in a number of issues, but there were no tankers familiar with this machine.
Please explain:
1. The gunner did not have an infrared but a thermal imager, right? Your phrase about "infrared" is a little incomprehensible ...
2. Where it is located ? Is it a remote boom at the gunner’s hatch?
- Daily TPD-1K I see
- I see the old night TPN-Z-49, by the way, what for did they leave it if the Moon was dismantled? And through it it is impossible to fire using the CWF. Does it make a new thermal imager?
3. How convenient is a mechanical thermal imager? Does he have a self-cleaning system? If so, how is the purification carried out?
4. Between the gunner and the commander is a barbell with equipment. Is it an atmospheric data sensor or GPS?
5. In addition to TKN-3, did the commander have something from new devices?

I don’t ask for secrets.
It is simply interesting to find out these questions from the operator of this modernization.

Best regards
Alex.

[Professor]

Between the gunner and the commander is a barbell with equipment. Is it an atmospheric data sensor or GPS

This is an atmospheric data sensor. Two GPS receivers are to the left (along the tank) and not much behind. Like on the new TOW.

[Aleks tv]

Quote: professor

This is an atmospheric data sensor.

So I thought ...


Good day, Oleg.

Quote: professor

Two GPS receivers are to the left (along the tank) and not much behind. Like on the new TOW.

This is not the cuttlefish that the sky smokes on the bar to the left of the gunner’s hatch?
Or is it a new thermal imager?
Oleg, can you tell me, otherwise the Azerbaijani tanker refers to the hefty secrecy of my naive question - WHERE is the Israeli gunner’s thermal imager there? The appearance of, so to speak, this device.
Well, I don’t know that I asked such a secret ...

I don’t ask where they hide moonshine in the tank ...
This really is a military secret.

[Professor]

Quote: Aleks tv

This is not the cuttlefish that the sky smokes on the bar to the left of the gunner’s hatch?

Yes, here it is GPS.

Quote: Aleks tv

Oleg, can you tell me

I myself am not a tanker however. When I meet, I’ll ask a friend from Elbit. He knows everything.

[Aleks tv]

Quote: professor

Yes, here it is GPS.

Got it, Oleg.

And ... then where is the thermal imager?
Well you hide equipment ...


It’s just interesting.
If I can find out, I will be grateful, Oleg.
Not in a hurry of course, the PM is always there.

[Professor]

Quote: Aleks tv

And ... then where is the thermal imager?

Why scratch him with parades, they will scratch him. Let it lie in the warehouse.

[TELEMARK]

Quote: Krang

The best tank guns in the world today. Very reliable. And most importantly - interchangeable with guns 2A46, 2A46M (2A46-1), 2A46M-1 (2A46-2). That is, they can be installed even in the basic T-72 "Ural".

Dear Krang, I am pleased to have plus you!

[Signaller]

At the request of the customer, the barrel can be chrome-plated, which increases its resource.
That's for sure. Less often or completely, the barrel will now need to be cleaned. So for proforma. Dirt soot itself fall off.

[qQQQ]

Thank you all for a really meaningful discussion, there are rarely well-reasoned arguments now, basically, "we will throw our hats." Not much is off topic, I would like to hear from those in the know whether an analysis of the military operations in Ukraine was carried out on the T-64 and T-72. It is very tragic that they met, and even their own against their own. The militia declares about the destroyed Bulats and Oplothes, how they showed themselves, and which is better: reliability and cheap or cooler and more expensive? Always interested in the controversy of 64 and 72 fans.

[wanderer_032]

Quote: qqqq

fans of 64s and 72s

In the tank troops there are few fans of a particular vehicle. Basically, this is healthy pragmatism and practicality, which is determined primarily by the ability to carry out the assigned combat mission using entrusted equipment and at the same time stay alive. And also save your car and the folk money that was spent on it.

[Crang]

Quote: wanderer_032

In the tank troops there are few fans of a particular vehicle.

The tank troops also consist of almost some fans. Ukrainians are usually fans of the T-64. There are many fans of the "flying" T-80 gas turbine tank. Well, most of them are fans of the scary and cool, at the same time extremely brutal T-72/90 tank. The T-72 is like the Ural or Hurley Davidson motorcycle. Tell any Ural owner that Honda is better. He will not understand you. This is Ural! ("Hurley Davidson") and that says it all.

[Salkrast]

fans of 64ok and 72k probably have a place on the World of Tanks forum. it is there that spherical horses are compared in a vacuum. both tanks are comparable. at 64 there is an MSA, which gives some increase in firepower, in relation to 72k. 64ka is the main battle tank in Ukraine and is in service. 72ka in service is not worth it, which means that the army was not taught how to use it. from here it follows that it is not possible to effectively use 72 in Ukraine. this is where the comparison can end

[Crang]

We can add that the T-72 is much more reliable, better protected than the T-64 and more tenacious in battle.

[Professor]

The most noticeable external difference between the updated guns is the barrel bending meter.

I re-read the article, re-read the comments, and did not understand. Before that, there was no device for registering barrel bends on Russian tanks? The bourgeoisie has long been armed ... Tankers, explain please.

[foreman11]

there was- look at the pictures of all previous tanks, there is no mirror at the end of the guns

[Aleks tv]

Quote: professor

Before that, there was no device for registering barrel bends on Russian tanks?

Oleg, welcome.

Yes, somehow did not complain ...
Just shot and hit.

But now what will happen when the CID of the trunk channel is delivered, it’s even scary to think ...
Likely to be dismissed they will be released only if they get into a tin can at 4km ...

[Professor]

Quote: Aleks tv

Yes, somehow did not complain ...

What about the barrel heat shield? Why is it "not popular" in Russia? Is the sun hot?

[Aleks tv]

Quote: professor

But what about the barrel heat shield? Why is it "not popular" in Russia?

Oleg, why not use it?
Snapped and snapped.
There are no requests - and that’s good.

It’s just that he’s kind of a little ... you can touch him with a sledgehammer or a crowbar - he always wrinkles, bends, breaks ...

Mutota, in a word. Not tank equipment, but the powder box of the Smolny institute.

[Professor]

Quote: Aleks tv

Oleg, why not use it?

I ask "why not use", and "why not popular"? You have a lot of tanks without him. Why?

[Aleks tv]

Quote: professor

A bunch of tanks you have without it. Why?

Point put it ...
They’ve been posing for a long time.

On almost all linear T-72B stands after 1989 year ...
Unreliable just in everyday use, and so - naman, with a beer pull.

Here it is on the T-90:

[anomalocaris]

Read. It became good, but then I thought about it, if ours began to publish such data (just memories of a special officer), then we have more interesting things ...

[Oblozelo]

New gun! Progress.
I think to be continued

[Target]

It is better to immediately upgrade the T-90 with these guns, otherwise they are more reliable than the T-72, that is, there is less chance that the gun will be destroyed along with the tank. In addition, there is less chance that the tank itself will be destroyed, otherwise we have only 90 T-500, and T-72 -> 9000, we do not mind them. (the numbers of tanks are from Wikipedia)

[bmv04636]

The question is what kind of gun will be on Armata.
And as I understand it, our tank guns do not require constant calibration of the sight, for example, like the French who need to calibrate the gun after transporting on a trawl (sight)

[bmv04636]

And I found 2A82

[Prager]

Great article! read with pleasure, plus. thanks to the author.

[anclevalico]

When they write about guided projectiles, which even the best of the best in biathlon cannot shoot, it becomes sad.

[Alexey P]

Just as the muzzle brakes did not work properly, they still do not work after all the upgrades to the 2A46M-5 and 2A46M-4. The recoil of the barrel is still strongly transmitted by the recoil to the entire hull of the tank, shaking it and its crew to the point of indecency, unlike the same Abrams, leopards, etc., which remain motionless after a shot. Our designers are sleeping in a yoke, at least they took a look at these bourgeoisie how they deal with the recoil of their barrels! And the Ministry of Defense is also dozing and is not able to tighten the requirements for barrel recoil, but for that the kickbacks are probably under control!?