Domestic projects of tank guns caliber 152 mm

151
In the context of the Armata project, the possible use of new weapons is sometimes mentioned. In particular, there was an assumption according to which the new Russian tank should receive a 152 mm gun. Nevertheless, it is already known that the Armata will receive a 125 mm gun. It should be noted that in our country attempts were really made to create modern tank guns of increased caliber. Over the past several decades, the Soviet and then Russian defense industry has repeatedly made attempts to develop a modern smooth-bore 152 mm tank gun. Creating a similar weapons and the beginning of its operation could become a real revolution in the field of tank building, but domestic tanks never received it. For a number of reasons, they are still equipped with 125-mm guns.

LP-83



In the mid-eighties among the military and tank builders spread the view that it is necessary to further increase the firepower of armored vehicles by increasing the caliber of guns. In order to work out the possibility of creating a tank with such weapons, the project “Object 292” was launched. Experts of the Leningrad Kirovsky Plant (LKZ) and the VNII Transmash were engaged in the development of this experimental project, the project manager was N.S. Popov.

According to initial calculations, the design of the tank, based on the existing components and assemblies of the production machine T-80BV, did not allow the use of guns of a caliber larger than 140 mm. With further increase in the caliber there was a risk of deformation and damage to the design of the machine. However, after a series of calculations and studies, it was possible to find opportunities for an additional increase in firepower. As a result, it was determined that the caliber of the gun can be brought to 152,4 mm. After that, a new question appeared: the type of trunk. Considered the possibility of using smooth and rifled trunks. Initially, the Petrel Research Institute was assigned the task of developing a smooth-bore 152 mm caliber gun, which was designated LP-83. Later, after many disputes, it was decided to test the rifled gun, but its development did not start due to financial problems that emerged in the late eighties. According to others, the debate about the type of gun ended in the absence of supporters of a rifled barrel.

In addition to the Petrel Research Institute, the project of a promising tank guns worked at the Perm Machine-Building Plant. In addition to these organizations, it was planned to involve others in the project. Thus, the tower for the tank "Object 292" was supposed to build Izhora plant (Leningrad), but his leadership refused such an order because of the load. After that, the LKZ specialists independently developed a draft of the tower and ordered its assembly to the Zhdanov transport engineering plant (now Mariupol), however, this time the tank was almost left without a tower. In the end, there was a draft revision of the serial T-80BV turret in order to install a large-sized gun in it. It was this kind of combat module that was eventually used on the experienced 292 Object.

Domestic projects of tank guns caliber 152 mm


Due to the high power in the design of the LP-83 gun, I had to use some original ideas and solutions. Thus, the barrel and chamber were chrome-plated, which made it possible to bring the cross-pressure to the level of 7000 kg / sq. cm and above. In the early version of the project, a shutter with a vertical wedge and semi-automatic cocking was proposed. In addition, on the breech of the gun should have been a special valve, blocking the bore after the extraction of spent cartridges to avoid smoke station compartment. Some proposals were soon rejected, others were finalized, and still others were used without any changes. So, an experimental tool LP-83 received a piston gate instead of a wedge, and instead of an ejector on the gun there was an air purge system.

Construction of an experimental tank "Object 292" ended in the fall of the year 1990. At the beginning of the next 91, the car was sent to the landfill for test firing. It is known that the new experimental LP-83 smooth-bore gun had significantly higher characteristics in comparison with the 2-46 series production guns. So, the 152-mm gun had about one and a half times greater shot momentum than the existing weapon. At the same time, highly effective anti-recoil devices made it possible to talk about the possible use of a new weapon on serial tanks. Rollback guns LP-83 and 2А46 were about the same. As a result, the T-80BV tank chassis behaved stably, and its design did not experience excessive loads.

According to reports, during the test firing shots were made at armored vehicles. So, several shots were made at the decommissioned T-72 tank. They resulted in several breaks in the tower. In addition, in the fighting compartment of the target tank, various elements of the internal equipment were torn off. Shooting at the tank clearly showed the combat capabilities of the promising 152-mm LP-83 gun.

Tests of the experimental tank "Object 292" with the 152-mm gun LP-83 showed the prospects for such weapons. The possibility of a significant increase in the firepower of the main tanks was proved by using new guns of increased caliber without any serious problems with the design of the base armored vehicle. Thus, after a series of additional studies, design work and tests, a project of a promising main tank armed with an 152 caliber mm could appear.

Nevertheless, in the late eighties and early nineties in our country there were serious changes that seriously hit the army, the defense industry and the mass of promising projects. Perhaps the work on the subject 152-mm smooth-bore tank guns could continue, but the reality decreed otherwise. Tank "Object 292" after the end of the test for some time remained at the site and was not used in any work. In 2007, the car was sent to Kubinka, where it became an exhibit of the museum.

2А83

Since the end of the nineties, the Ural transport engineering design bureau has been working on a project for the promising main tank “Object 195”. According to reports, a few years ago the development of this project was discontinued, but so far most of the information about it remains secret. Only fragmentary information has become public knowledge, and a considerable part of the information about the “195 Object” is estimates, guesses and conjectures. Nevertheless, it is known that a promising armored vehicle was supposed to carry a gun caliber 152 mm. In the new project, it was proposed to use a new tool, created specifically for it, and not borrowed from the 292 Object project.

The 2A83 152 mm caliber gun was supposed to be the main weapon of the advanced tank. This artillery system was developed by Plant No. XXUMX (Yekaterinburg) and was to provide the new armored vehicle with uniquely high combat characteristics.

It is known that the tank "Object 195" was to be equipped with an uninhabited tower with a smooth-bore gun caliber 152 mm. The tower was supposed to be in the form of a low support platform with a box-shaped casing on the roof. Inside the latter, it was proposed to place the attachment tools and recoil devices. There was supposed to be located automatic loader. The presence of the latter was mandatory due to the use of an uninhabited tower. Some sources mention that the 30-mm automatic cannon and the 12,7-mm machine gun were also to be mounted on the turret. They were supposed to be used as paired and anti-aircraft weapons: according to some data, the tank was planned to be equipped with a paired machine gun and an anti-aircraft gun, according to others - with a paired gun and anti-aircraft machine gun.



Due to the lack of accurate official data, there are various versions regarding the design of the automatic loader. According to one version, the ammunition was to be located in a mechanized installation, placed in the aft niche of the tower. In this case, the automatics should have independently removed ammunition from the stacking cells and sent them to the milling line. During all operations, the projectiles had to remain outside the tank's armored hull, which could have a positive effect on its survivability and reduce the risks associated with defeat of the ammunition stack. The stern niche of the tower could be made in the form of a detachable module. Thus, it was possible to simplify the loading of ammunition: for this, it was necessary to remove the “spent” feed module of the turret from the tank and install a new one with shells.

According to other data, the automatic loading of the tank "Object 195" associated with the gun 2А83, was to be a further development of the ideas embodied in the previous systems of this class. Using the increase in free space in the uninhabited fighting compartment, it was possible to place all 152-mm shots vertically in a mechanized carousel styling. In addition to the latter, the automat had to include a lift and a discharging mechanism designed to feed the shells to the gun and prepare it for firing. A curious feature of the proposed automatic loader, according to some data, was the gap between the bottom of the piling and the bottom of the case. Thanks to this, in particular, it was possible to operate the automation even with some damage to the case.

The 2А83 cannon was to be equipped with a smooth barrel with a length of 55 gauges. It could be used as a launcher, suitable both for firing "traditional" shells, and for launching guided missiles. In some sources it is mentioned that the ammunition of this gun could include not only anti-tank, but also anti-aircraft missiles of appropriate dimensions. Thus, the tank "Object 195" could fight with manpower, armored vehicles, fortifications, and even attack helicopters opponents. In the dimensions of the existing fighting compartment, it was possible to place up to 40 shots for various purposes, including high-explosive fragmentation and armor-piercing shells of various types, as well as anti-tank and anti-aircraft guided missiles.

Experiments with the tool LP-83 in the early nineties showed the benefits of increasing caliber. According to reports, the 2А83 cannon, using a larger propellant charge compared to shots for the standard 2А46, could launch an armor-piercing sabot projectile at speeds up to 1980-2000 m / s. Thus, a significant superiority was achieved over the existing tank guns with any type of ammunition.

It is known that the gun 2А83 passed tests. Several years ago several photos of this instrument appeared in free access. The first shot was taken during the first stages of testing, when the gun was mounted on the tracked gun carriage of the B-4 gun. The details of these tests, unfortunately, are unknown. Having some information about the tests of the LP-83 gun, it can be assumed that the 2-83 showed no less high performance. In this case, as always happens in such cases, some flaws should have manifested themselves, which, if there were, then remain under secrecy.

There was also an experimental model of a tank with an original tower of an uninhabited structure. The existence of this prototype is confirmed not only by various references in different sources, but also by photographs. A new combat module with an 72-mm gun was installed on the chassis of the serial T-152 tank. The appearance of the units captured in the photo can serve as confirmation of the version about the use of laying ammunition in the form of a removable module. So, the prototype cannon is fixed in a relatively small cabin, which has no feed sheet. It is quite possible that a box with ammunition and mechanized installation was to be attached to this aft "window".

In the middle of the two thousand years, it was reported that the tank "Object 195" is being tested, after which it can be adopted by the Russian army. 2010 appeared several times news about the possible demonstration of a promising car to the general public. In addition, rumors continued to circulate soon that the new tank would be put into service. However, all this information was not confirmed. Finally, it became known that work on the 195 Object project was halted due to the need to develop a new Armat platform. The management of Uralvagonzavod declared its intention to continue to work on its own initiative and without the participation of the Ministry of Defense, however, since then no new reports about the project have appeared.

Advantages and disadvantages

For two decades, the Russian gunsmith designers have created two projects of promising guns caliber 152 mm. As far as is known, both of these developments remained at the design and testing stage, failing to interest the potential customer in the person of the armed forces. So far, disputes about the feasibility of such weapons for tanks, as well as its prospects, advantages and disadvantages, have not abated. Consider some of the pros and cons of 152-mm guns.

The main plus smoothbore tank guns caliber 152 mm - a uniquely high power. Thus, the LP-83 was about one and a half times more powerful than the serial 2А46, which should have a corresponding effect on combat effectiveness. In addition, it became possible to use existing 152-mm shells of various types used by artillery, which also could to a certain extent improve the potential of the tank. The increased caliber allowed to create new ammunition, including armor-piercing sub-caliber shells of increased power and guided missiles, both anti-tank and anti-aircraft.

The cons of the 152-mm tank guns are as obvious as the pros. First of all, these are large dimensions in comparison with existing 125-mm artillery systems. The dimensions of the gun impose specific requirements for the design of the tank. Relatively large ammunition also affects the design of the armored vehicle or its individual units. They require either to increase stacking for ammunition, or to reduce it, fitting in the available volumes. In addition, it may be necessary to create a new automatic loader, as demonstrated by the 195 Object project. An equally important problem that needs to be solved is an extremely high recoil momentum, for which new recoil devices are necessary. The use of units, unchanged borrowed from existing 125-mm guns, threatens to damage both recoil devices and the design of the tank itself.

The experience of two domestic projects shows that the current level of technological development allows us to develop and build promising main tanks with smooth-bore guns of caliber 152 mm. This requires some relatively new technologies, but there are no fundamental problems. Nevertheless, such promising projects face not only technical problems. New projects may not be feasible in terms of economics and logistics.




Development and mass production of new 152-mm guns and tanks on which they will be used, are associated with relatively large costs. In addition, the development of the production of new ammunition for such equipment and their distribution between tank units will be quite expensive and difficult. From the point of view of economics and logistics in the existing situation, 152-mm guns have no advantages over 125-millimeter guns. The warehouses have an enormous amount of different 125 mm caliber ammunition, which is why the parallel operation of tanks with two-caliber guns, not to mention the full transfer of ground forces to new tanks with larger-caliber weapons, does not look quite reasonable.

Another specific feature of 152-mm guns is the lack of worthy targets. According to the available data, modern domestic tanks, using the available ammunition, are capable of fighting various enemy armored vehicles. In such a case, the power of 152-mm guns may be excessive to fight tanks, which casts doubt on the very idea of ​​operating such weapons.

Thus, the combat advantages of tanks with 152 mm caliber guns are confronted with ambiguous logistic and economic features, as well as the inexpediency of using such powerful weapons against existing and future targets. As a result, the military has shown no interest in 152-mm tank guns. The LP-83 project is closed after all the tests have been completed, and the 2-83 tool, as follows from the available data, has no real prospects. As far as we know, the new Armata tank will be equipped with a 125 caliber mm gun. This means that the gun revolution in tank design is again postponed indefinitely.

On the materials of the sites:
http://btvt.narod.ru/
http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/
http://dogswar.ru/
http://nevskii-bastion.ru/
http://vpk.name/
http://militaryparitet.com/
http://alternathistory.org.ua/
http://ru-artillery.livejournal.com/
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-311.html
151 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    19 March 2015 05: 23
    Yes, the question is completely political. Who will be the first to put a gun over 130mm in the tank, that will open the "pondora's box" with all this carousel for rearmament, according to the costs. And, interestingly, everyone understands this, and we and in the West have "trump cards up their sleeve" However, sooner or later this step will be taken and we must be ready for it. We need a "reserve" combat module (152mm) for the "Armata", and ideally for the T-72B3.
    1. +11
      19 March 2015 09: 39
      You're right ! but we can only rejoice that we understand this and the new tank is immediately modular and I won’t be surprised that the 152 module already exists!
      Given that it is rumored that on the armature the elongated base (7 rollers) is the same as on object 195.
      If so, then we can conclude the 152 mm module was originally designed in the new platform!
      1. +2
        19 March 2015 11: 03
        Quote: MolGro
        then we understand this and the new tank is immediately modular and I won’t be surprised that the 152 module already exists!

        I myself hope this and hope) Such a module must be! No wonder they make everything modular)
        1. +1
          19 March 2015 21: 04
          power of 152-mm guns may be excessive to fight tanks

          Well, the power cannot be excessive! It's like saying "there's too much money." If a projectile breaks through the armor or pierces through, that's great, it is a guarantee of defeat from the first shot, even if it hits the forehead or the corner of the tank. Here and the reduced ammunition is compensated. Which is better: 30 shells that knock out 28 tanks (let's leave 2 for misses and failures), or let's say there 45, but they still need to hit correctly, and so that not in the forehead, and not in the remote control, and so on.
          1. raf
            +3
            19 March 2015 22: 29
            Well, power cannot be redundant!

            How else can! Why shoot from 152 mm if 125 mm is enough ?! It is not economically feasible!
            1. +3
              20 March 2015 16: 37
              Well, if it is almost exaggerated. You’re running away from AKSU, but you have enough strength to carry KPVT without any loss in mobility. What do you choose?

              a cartridge for a machine gun is more expensive but you can hit not only manpower but also light armored vehicles.

              Also here, the base is one but the gun is more powerful. This means that the range of targets hit is wider, this means that the HE affects a large area. Well, something like this.

              at the same time, it makes no sense to send a point to destroy the enemy shed.
              1. -3
                21 March 2015 02: 47
                No loss in mobility?
                Maybe even without changes in the design of the trunnions, turrets, shoulder straps, etc., the mass carried by the ammunition?! ..
                HUMANITARIAN THEORETS, lie flat on the couch and don’t write nonsense here! .. exaggerated ..
                1. -1
                  23 March 2015 09: 35
                  Quote: Lance
                  Maybe even without changes in the design of the trunnions, turrets, shoulder straps, etc., the mass carried by the ammunition?! ..

                  I didn’t say anything about the construct, well, tell me how much the mass of the tank with such a gun will change? if you are a practitioner and know the subject well you should know the answer.
                  1. 0
                    24 March 2015 00: 47
                    What kind of provocation is this with a zakosom: "if you are a practitioner .. you know the topic well .. you should know the answer"? )) Do you think I'll blurt out the "answer"? Horseradish! Tear off ... from the sofa and ezhzhayte in Tagil - even there they will not say the answer right away, but they know the topic at UVZ very well.
                    The caliber is, in the first place, changes in the layout of the AZ and the placement of ammunition and the return of the gun, which entails the strength recalculation and design change of the MBT. What is the change in recoil? Count for yourself;)
                    What was discussed above: the existing caliber is sufficient. Now it is not the diameter of the "pipe hole" that decides, but BIUS and OMS. And the characteristics of the ammunition.
                    By the way, all BOPS are sub-caliber! wink
            2. 0
              21 March 2015 19: 38
              Obvious illogicality. Why, then, are they firing thousands of 152 mm howitzer shells? After all, they have no "worthy" opponents))))))
      2. +1
        19 March 2015 13: 12
        Quote: MolGro
        Given that it is rumored that on the armature the elongated base (7 rollers) is the same as on object 195.

        Who told you that?
        This is a significant increase in weight, the need for a much more powerful engine and loss of maneuverability (turn-turn in a narrow space).
        I can’t remember the source, but the T-14 will not exceed the T-90 in terms of weight (i.e. 6 rollers). And perhaps the crew is 2 people instead of 3 (driver-mechanic, commander-operator of weapons). The automation level will allow you to remotely control the tank.
        1. Rex
          +3
          19 March 2015 13: 26
          Basically, there is infa that the T-14 will weigh from 50 tons.
          It is quite logical, because T-90 on basic protection loses to competitors
          1. 0
            21 March 2015 19: 42
            Who told you that about "losing"? Since when did the tales of Western journalists and pro-Western rossiyanskih newspapers become a source? )))))
      3. +2
        19 March 2015 13: 53
        no. there will be 6 rollers (running t80), uvz itself merged. and the installation of a 152 mm cannon is provided for in the Tula module (yes, the Ministry of Defense instructed the KBP not only to do the "Epoch"), you do not need to twist anything from 195. There is a whole article on the website with the designer's comments where it is written why it was decided to focus on the NEW 125mm cannon . and why do you need 152 (size does not matter) ??? and shells in the automatic loader will fit less, and for 125mm there are many shells in warehouses and production has already been established.
        1. wanderer_032
          0
          19 March 2015 14: 23
          Quote: Hariton
          there will be 6 rollers (running t80), uvz itself merged. and the installation of a 152 mm cannon is provided in the Tula module (yes, the Ministry of Defense instructed the KBP not only to do "Epoch"), you do not need to twist anything from 195.


          The 6-roller drive part can also be placed on a longer body, and their location can be changed.
          Example T-62.
        2. 0
          19 March 2015 17: 20
          Quote: Hariton
          Uvz itself merged. and installation of a 152 mm gun is provided in the Tula module

          It pleases of course. There is hope.
          1. Robespierre9
            +1
            19 March 2015 18: 45
            You need TWO tanks already obvious, in the Japanese new tank there are generally 5 rollers, that’s the way it is.
            1. +1
              20 March 2015 15: 01
              the Japanese defense tank is one of the weakest, because it costs 5 rinks.
              my brother, a tankman, when he found out that there would be 6 rinks left, he was disappointed - he says that it’s impossible to make adequate protection on 6 rinks.
              1. Robespierre9
                0
                20 March 2015 22: 35
                Well, they have two tanks, dear - Type 90 on the defensive and does not move anywhere, Type 10 - Drag nah West, or for mobile airborne transport.
              2. 0
                21 March 2015 19: 44
                How did you get the idea that your brother tankman generally knows something about the composition and properties of the armor of Russian tanks?
        3. 0
          21 March 2015 09: 47
          It seems the chassis is still not from the T-80, because in these photos the Coalition of CB ice rinks are the same as on T-72/90
          CoalitionCoalition
          Coalition
          Yes, I also remember such an info about the T-80 suspension (less weight, better ride at high speed, etc.).
          1. 0
            21 March 2015 11: 19
            Quote: Ostap Bender
            It seems the chassis is still not from the T-80, ....

            By the way, the MSTAs chassis, although similar to the T-80 chassis, is not a copy, but its own. The engine compartment, for example, she has from the T-72. A running gear from the T-80 was used in the MSTA mainly because of shock absorbers: the direct from the T-80 for self-propelled guns with a powerful gun is better than the blade from the T72-80.
            1. 0
              21 March 2015 11: 35
              Quote: Bad_gr
              By the way, the MSTAs chassis, although similar to the T-80 chassis, is not a copy, but its own.

              Fully interchangeable components and assemblies ...
              1. +1
                21 March 2015 13: 42
                And what did I write about? body - own, motor - from T-72, rollers - from t-80, etc.
                Chassis, if I’m not mistaken, was made by Omsk, which previously produced the T-80 tank, so it’s not surprising that it used what was at hand, but of course, adapted for self-propelled guns with its not weak gun.
      4. -2
        20 March 2015 17: 04
        "T-95" and "Black Eagle" are different tanks. The first was developed in Nizhny Tagil, the second - in Omsk. -And it is on the "Black Eagle" that there is an extended base (7 rollers) and there is a real opportunity to install a 152 mm caliber gun ...
        -But to our great regret the tank "Black Eagle" was consigned to oblivion ... -Exactly the same ... -Like the "Su-37" ... - a magnificent multifunctional super-maneuverable fighter "Terminator" ...
        - Evidently, the Russian defense industry (as well as in all branches of the national economy of Russia) has its own "Chubais-pests" ...
        -Big minus to the author of the article ...
        1. +2
          20 March 2015 18: 51
          Quote: lonovila
          "T-95" and "Black Eagle" are different tanks. The first was developed in Nizhny Tagil, the second - in Omsk. -And it is on the "Black Eagle" that there is an extended base (7 rollers) and there is a real opportunity to install a 152 mm caliber gun ...

          Photo of the Ural object 195: and a 152mm caliber gun and 7-roller chassis
        2. 0
          21 March 2015 11: 38
          Quote: lonovila
          But to our great regret, the "Black Eagle" tank was consigned to oblivion ...

          Let's not jump to premature conclusions. Since the designers from the Omsk Design Bureau were involved in the design of the "Armata", we will wait for May 9 ...
        3. +1
          21 March 2015 11: 39
          Quote: lonovila
          just like the Su-37 ... - a magnificent multifunctional super-maneuverable Terminator fighter ...

          How can we talk about something that has not passed the full range of tests in such epithets. An aircraft created on the basis of the T50 will be much better, primarily in terms of visibility.
    2. +4
      19 March 2015 14: 03
      The problem of choosing the optimal tank caliber is similar to that in small arms. That is, the optimization of the power of the shot and the portable ammunition.
      Now, discussions on the 120-125 mm caliber are similar to doubts about the appropriateness and use of the 5,45-5,56 caliber and its replacement in small arms. It seems to be quite a working caliber, but already the personnel protection technologies greatly affect its effectiveness.
      Also with a tank caliber. It seems like 125 mm completely solves most of the tasks on the battlefield, but its power is not enough for well-protected targets, although there are not many such goals on the battlefield.
      Therefore, as 7,62 in the army is used to solve tasks at a distance inaccessible to 5,45, so the 152 mm gun will be used in similar situations. But will this vehicle be a tank? Most likely not, since it does not have to act in direct contact with the enemy and therefore it is not necessary to have a level of protection comparable to that of a tank, which is what the rapid development of equipment like self-propelled guns indicates.
      And the attempt to create a hybrid of self-propelled guns and tanks is doubtful.
    3. +5
      19 March 2015 14: 58
      A friend of mine worked at MINTYAZHPROM for LP-83 and its ammunition. His words are super gun !!! Podkalibernym through the side of the tank !!! from 1,5 km. And the second board fragments !!!

      He told me that even under Gorbachev they secretly "agreed" not to install serial tanks over 125 mm. By the way, in terms of the economy and the size of the charges - the lengthening of the propellant charge is small - since the volume is already increasing, and the sub-caliber ones themselves can be sorted out at the factory, disassembled, mounted a new skirt and beforehand ...
      1. 0
        19 March 2015 20: 08
        With this caliber, you can also shoot the OFS, not a single tank will be delighted with such a gift.
      2. Robespierre9
        -1
        20 March 2015 22: 44
        Quote: Gogia
        He told me that even under Gorbachev they secretly "agreed" not to install serial tanks over 125 mm. By the way, in terms of the economy and the size of the charges - the elongation of the propellant charge is small - since the volume is already increasing

        Here, here I have precisely what I had thought about the conspiracy - since many actually have, and no one sets up - they are afraid that the arms race, plus all the old tanks will lose their value at once.

        But our "Suckers" were, as always, lit up, their tanks are heavier and by "screwing in" a 140-155 mm gun, they really "come out" in weight, up to 80 tons, but we will quite realistically stay in 60, that is, all OK. as opposed to "them". Ours were inflated again it was necessary to do 152 mm.
      3. 0
        21 July 2015 17: 32
        And about the supposedly wild wear of the barrel and its small resource compared to a 125 mm gun, it’s true
    4. +1
      19 March 2015 21: 43
      There is no doubt and no options, against 152 not one armor can stand in the forehead, it will break, and the crew will beat with fragments.
    5. +1
      20 March 2015 15: 59
      Quote: Argon
      However, sooner or later this step will be taken and one must be ready for it. A "reserve" combat module (152mm) is needed for the "Armata", and ideally for the T-72B3.

      Quote: crazyrom
      Well, power cannot be redundant!

      Perhaps the installation of 152 mm guns on tanks will revive the old division into medium and heavy tanks.
      Here you need to look at the tasks.
      The 152-mm caliber is extremely powerful ammunition, both unguided and guided.
      Although the experience with ob.292 suggests that it was planned to create a new weapon module and put it on the standard MBT chassis of the T-80 (and T-72), it is most likely more expedient to put the 152-mm gun on an even less mobile one, but a more protected tank, equipped with mandatory KAZ, a powerful ATGM-MANPADS (from army aircraft), shrapnel ammunition - a kind of BMPT variant, the heir to the ISs.
  2. +13
    19 March 2015 05: 25
    To the author plus. Good article. I read that the French at the turn of the 2000x also considered the option of installing guns with the caliber 140 or 155 mm on the Leclerc. But they encountered many difficulties. And the recoil devices flew, the ammunition load was significantly reduced and there were problems with the automatic loader. As a result, Leclerc and stayed with xnumx mm gun
    1. +3
      19 March 2015 18: 16
      At the turn of the 2000s, there were press reports about the development of a new 140-mm smooth-bore tank gun for installation on NATO main tanks: Leopard-2, M1A1 Abrams and Leclerc with their modernization, as well as allegedly for installation on newly developed tanks. But things did not go beyond these messages in the press. At exhibitions, tanks with 140-mm guns did not shine, there is not even reliable photographic documents confirming the fact of their existence. Although the topic of 140-mm cannons for tanks was exaggerated for a long time. But at the exit - zilch. Either it happened or not - God only knows.
      1. Rex
        +3
        19 March 2015 19: 19
        Were both designed and tested. Photos were also in magazines. It seems even put on tanks.
        There were several foreign guns. It’s just that the main developments went back to the 80s.
        Then they decided to do a single one for NATO (like they took the German one).
        It pawed like ours
        1. +7
          19 March 2015 19: 29
          Quote: Rex
          Were both designed and tested. Photos were also in magazines. It seems even put on tanks.

          "Leopard" with 140mm cannon:
          1. Rex
            0
            19 March 2015 19: 46
            This is clearly more recent. After the 95th, for sure, or maybe zero.
            I myself saw something else in black and white. At the stands
  3. +9
    19 March 2015 06: 04
    The conclusions are not straightforward ...
    There is a huge amount of different ammunition of 125 mm caliber in the warehouses, which is why the parallel operation of tanks with guns of two calibers, not to mention the complete transfer of ground forces to new tanks with weapons of a larger caliber, does not seem quite advisable.
    Well, first of all, these stocks will be both consumed and partially sold and written off, due to the expiration of storage periods. Moreover, even for the new 125 mm guns, the ammunition will be new, otherwise there is no point in putting them into service. So, whatever you want or not, the "old" 125 mm must be replaced.
    Another specific feature of the 152 mm guns is the lack of decent targets. According to reports, modern domestic tanks, using available ammunition, are able to fight various enemy armored vehicles.
    Something like that, some of our "analysts" said at the end of 1942, having fully reviewed the appearance of heavy-armored tanks from the Germans, then we had to "catch up" very quickly. Firstly, anti-tank ammunition made back in the USSR no longer provides 100% destruction of new Western tanks, and these shells make up more than a significant percentage of the reserves.
    So, I think that the transition to a larger caliber of 140 or 152 mm is a matter of time, and not very far. By the way, the problem can be partially eliminated by switching to iron-ore minerals (liquid propellants), especially since our scientists managed to take a strong step forward in this direction. In this case, it will be necessary to establish the production of only one shells, without charges.
    1. +6
      19 March 2015 09: 11
      Quote: svp67
      Something similar, some of our "analysts" said at the end of 1942,

      I agree. The 57-mm anti-tank gun was removed from service and production, and then everything had to be urgently returned to its place, since "the targets appeared." But the situation there was simpler - the gun had already been worked out, the factory facilities existed, and in the current situation everything would have to be done urgently, but from scratch.
    2. +6
      19 March 2015 09: 18
      Another specific feature of the 152-mm guns is the lack of decent goals.

      The main purpose of the tank is to storm the enemy fortifications. And the use of a tank as a fighter tank, these are side-use options that our enemies had to accept: the Germans in the Second World War and the NATO in the Cold War. Most of their tanks were created as fighter tanks: Panther, Leopard, Abrams, etc.
      And 152mm for the assault is amazing. Yes and PF 152mm on the tank is not bad. And if a cumulative 152mm projectile (for this weapon) is created, then it will have a good high-explosive and fragmentation impact.
      True, with the detonation of ammunition, the tower most likely will not be thrown, but will be torn.
      1. 0
        19 March 2015 15: 17
        And 200 mm is even more amazing. Only you will have to sacrifice protection and ammunition. You need to choose a reasonable and optimal option.
    3. +3
      19 March 2015 14: 45
      Quote: svp67
      Something like that, some of our "analysts" said at the end of 1942, having fully reviewed the appearance of heavy-armored tanks from the Germans, then we had to "catch up" very quickly.


      The appearance of heavy-armored tanks by the Germans significantly changed the practice of anti-tank missions, but did not change the tactics of tank battles. The battle of a tank with a tank is an unpleasant thing, and they try to avoid it even if possible.
      For the Germans, the presence of the T-34 and KV was also an extremely unpleasant surprise. The result was the use of 8,8 cm FlaK as artillery. This changed the tactics of using artillery, but did not greatly affect the practice of using tanks themselves.

      Quote: svp67
      anti-tank munitions made in the USSR no longer provide 100% destruction of new western tanks, and these shells account for more than a significant percentage of stockpiles.


      A tank does not have to be atomized with a single hit. Most BPS hits in a tank at effective fire ranges incapacitate it even without breaking through the armor (with the exception of sliding hits / bounces when there is not enough energy in the tank). Following the battle, the tank will go to the winners. Either they drag and repair their own, or opponents trophy.

      A tank is, first of all, a means of reinforcing infantry, and for these purposes 120 \ 125 mm is more than enough.

      Also, IMHO, a significant improvement in the protective qualities of tanks in the near future is not expected. It’s nowhere to be heavier than tanks, the capabilities of existing materials are already fully utilized. The reserve of layout solutions remains unused, let's see how Armata will show itself. But serious changes, KMK, we will not see.
    4. +2
      20 March 2015 15: 06
      no type of ammunition in principle is capable of providing 100% destruction
      demanding this from shells is hardly worth it.
      I think if there is a probability at the level of 70-80%, this is already a very good indicator.
  4. +1
    19 March 2015 06: 45
    Interesting ................................
    Yes, no, I think 152 mm for tanks doesn’t make much sense to put
    1. avt
      +3
      19 March 2015 11: 19
      Quote: Gans1234
      152 mm for tanks does not make much sense to put

      The main feature of the campaign in increasing the caliber to 152mm was the desire to unify the projectile with field artillery, they probably decided to optimize production in terms of cost - efficiency. and 120 should have disappeared, and the classic cannons, it seems, should start with 122.
      1. +6
        19 March 2015 13: 20
        But isn't field artillery designed for a rifled barrel?
        By the way, it is strange that they did not try to shove a smooth barrel by 180-203 mm into Mstu. With the advent of the concept of "quickly and accurately fired off and just as quickly dumped", an adjustable projectile of greater power looks more interesting both from a practical and an economic point of view (I suspect that the "brains" of 152 mm and 203 mm projectiles will cost the same and are the most expensive part of it).
        1. Rex
          +1
          19 March 2015 13: 29
          Apparently in both cases the task was to use the existing range of shells. Perhaps upgrade to a larger caliber in 15-20 years
          1. +3
            19 March 2015 14: 19
            A familiar vicious circle: we are making new equipment for old ammunition, since there is a lot of it in warehouses. At the ammunition warehouses the expiration date is running out - we make new "old" ammunition. The circle breaks when a roasted rooster bites in one place.
            The word "did not try" meant development work.
        2. +1
          19 March 2015 14: 52
          Quote: luiswoo
          With the advent of the concept of "quickly and accurately fired off and just as quickly dumped", an adjustable projectile of greater power looks more interesting both from a practical and an economic point of view (I suspect that the "brains" of 152 mm and 203 mm projectiles will cost the same and are the most expensive part of it).


          Боmost of the artillery targets are areal. Starting from platoon / company strongholds (which should be stupidly plowed with shells) and ending with columns on the march / equipment in areas of concentration, etc. Even counter-battery shooting is shooting at squares.
          There are very few point targets. Therefore, the main guns should be optimized for a conventional HE projectile, with the ability to use adjusted if necessary.
          1. -1
            19 March 2015 18: 28
            Get out of the cozy cryo chamber already. With an equal opponent, strikes on squares are only MLRS, and then "in squares" can be different, a cartoon from the 2nd minute:
            1. 0
              19 March 2015 18: 43
              Quote: luiswoo
              Get out of the cozy cryo chamber already. With an equal opponent, strikes on squares are only MLRS, and then "in squares" can be different,


              Anyway it can be. But from the experience of recent events - so far.
              The creation of local superiority over enemy artillery in the direction of the concentration of the main efforts, the suppression of his artillery by massive artillery fire using all systems, and then the methodical destruction of fortified areas in the interests of the infantry. And immediate fire support.
              According to the results, those attacking have less infantry than sitting on the defensive. And 85% of the lesions are from artillery fire.

              So since WWII only UAVs have been added and long-range MLRS.
              1. 0
                19 March 2015 20: 39
                Quote: Mik13
                But from the experience of recent events - so far.

                Systems for determining the direction of arthur appeared almost at the end of World War II. As well as the understanding that an equal opponent is likely to give an answer after the first volley.
                To shoot from a self-propelled gun with something other than high-precision shells, in the light of this, it is strange, except that the Papuans drive, to which there is nothing to answer.
                1. Rex
                  +1
                  19 March 2015 21: 00
                  Long range is not so simple.
                  In the case of self-propelled guns, even when determining the location of the battery, the time for suppression is required more than for a change of position.
                  1. 0
                    19 March 2015 22: 45
                    Quote: Rex
                    In the case of self-propelled guns, even when determining the location of the battery, the time for suppression is required more than for a change of position.



                    That's right. The shell is still flying, and the gunners are already washing off ... More precisely, they are changing their position.

                    MLRS for counter-battery control is well suited.
                2. 0
                  19 March 2015 22: 55
                  Quote: luiswoo
                  To shoot from a self-propelled gun with something other than high-precision shells, in the light of this, it is strange, except that the Papuans drive, to which there is nothing to answer.


                  Well, if the target is the firing position of the battery (or something like that), then what is the point of spending the WTO there, if the target is an areal, and the spread of shells at a distance is still comparable to the size of the target? Of course, you can hit from the MLRS ammunition clever ... But the 3-4 volley of 2-3 batteries will crush this target in exactly the same way, but much cheaper.

                  Counter-battery struggle is conducted with the superiority of their forces and means - both quantitative and qualitative. For example, if the opponent uses mainly towed systems, he will most likely lose the artduel. Etc.

                  Acoustic reconnaissance when firing from multiple positions is ineffective. Counter-battery radars suffer from electronic warfare, and by the way, they themselves come under attack often.

                  Remains UAVs (which are also not a panacea) and the good old military intelligence.
                  1. Rex
                    +1
                    20 March 2015 08: 17
                    Yes, homing ammunition is a good thing.
                    If the location of the enemy’s equipment is known with an accuracy of +/- 1 km, then several pieces of the missile charge a volley of battery, or even the MLRS division
        3. avt
          +1
          19 March 2015 16: 52
          Quote: luiswoo
          By the way, it’s strange that in Mstu they didn’t try to push the smooth trunk 180–203 mm into the same macar.

          request What for ? That's just why, when we completely made ourselves a nuclear shell under 152mm and 155 us, and also managed ones?
          1. 0
            19 March 2015 21: 27
            For the same as with the 152 mm tank - to increase efficiency.
            They did exactly that with AGS-30 - they did AGS-40, they are testing it now. And with 152 we went along the path of An-94 - pzh 2000, Archer, Coalition-SV (early version), where it all comes down to one thing - to deliver two shells to the target at the same time. Why just did not go to increase the caliber - this is not clear to me.
            1. Rex
              0
              19 March 2015 22: 00
              40 mm AGS is somehow conditionally tested. The system is under 20 years old, and all will not decide whether it is needed.
              Apparently they’ll bury.
              57 mm also seemed to be tested, but they could not come up with a purpose and meaning
              1. 0
                22 March 2015 12: 41
                In 2008, the developer, FSUE GNPP Pribor, delivered for testing the Russian Armed Forces 6 grenade launchers Balkan and a batch of ammunition

                Poor if buried, when used on technology, 40 mm look preferable.
                And I didn’t mention the 57-mm :) It seems to intersect with the 120-mm mortar. It comes to a ridiculous one: the number of explosives in the cartridge on the 5 grenades and mine, as well as their initial speed are approximately the same. It is not clear due to what, the designers of the AGS-57 decided to move the mortar.
        4. +1
          20 March 2015 12: 03
          Quote: luiswoo
          are its most expensive part

          With the modern development of technology, brains are just cheap, about $ 50 per set at cost. Those. massively reproducible.

          I just want to imagine the effectiveness of such a cumulative projectile, and even with a smoothbore gun. The focus length of the cumulative jet can exceed the size of the tank, which makes any modern defense against it pointless.
          1. 0
            22 March 2015 11: 52
            Quote: goose
            about 50 dollars per set at cost

            Russian production?
        5. 0
          20 March 2015 15: 08
          perhaps there will be another salvo fire guidance system - as in modern anti-ship missiles based on the guided flock principle, which will eliminate the need to put full-fledged guidance systems on all shells in a row.
  5. +5
    19 March 2015 07: 02
    I think the Armat platform has a margin of safety and modernization for the 152 mm gun.
  6. +4
    19 March 2015 07: 52
    It is to see a democratic argument that is it better to be redundant ?! Actually, in the normal sense, better is always better! And in general, it’s better to arm your own, as well as to feed your army better! Something recently there have been problems with logic and common sense in Russian society!
    1. +2
      19 March 2015 15: 08
      Quote: fktrcfylhn61
      It is to see a democratic argument that is it better to be redundant ?! Actually, in the normal sense, better is always better! And in general, it’s better to arm your own, as well as to feed your army better! Something recently there have been problems with logic and common sense in Russian society!


      Yes, there are problems with logic wassat

      Let's get it on the fingers ... that is, on the pistols.
      There is such a cool thing - Desert Eagle
      He is handsome, he has a killer caliber .50 (12.7), muzzle energy like AKM. Elephant can be overwhelmed wassat With one shot.
      True, it weighs a kilo under 2, the magazine's capacity is only 7 rounds, a shot in the room causes a slight contusion in the shooter, and also blinds in the dark. Yes, and the coccyx from the recoil can be broken.
      And somehow it happened that this gun is found either in the movies or in computer games.
      And in life, the most popular 9x19 cartridge, and the most popular commercial pistol are the mass-produced Glock.

      I think the analogy is understandable.
  7. BMW
    +3
    19 March 2015 08: 03
    And why is the article on the issue of increasing the firing range?
    I am delitant in this matter, but the firing range is higher. In addition, the tank acquires universal properties, can be used as a howitzer. And in combination with guided missiles are just fantastic opportunities. At long distances like a howitzer, at close range like a tank. In addition, against a 152 mm shell, dynamic armor is likely to be ineffective.
    1. +5
      19 March 2015 08: 15
      Truly an assault tank.
      Quote: bmw
      In addition, the tank acquires universal properties, can be used as a howitzer.

      Vryat whether the tank gun will have a large elevation angle. And the ammunition for the tank will be different from the artillery (my opinion).
      1. +1
        19 March 2015 11: 12
        Quote: igordok
        Truly an assault tank.

        I think that on the basis of Almaty, the designers thought out a module for an assault tank) a shortened barrel of 152 mm and a large angle of elevation. Well, there we wait - we'll see.
        1. +1
          24 November 2016 13: 38
          And they called it a self-propelled gun "Msta" or "Coalition"
    2. +8
      19 March 2015 08: 44
      As a howitzer, he could be used in a row, because the vertical guidance angles ... Yes, and the "smoothbore" as it were ... But I agree with this, the effectiveness of a land mine would be just hell
      1. +3
        19 March 2015 09: 16
        Quote: Patton5
        land mine effectiveness would be just hell

        The explosion of a Soviet high-explosive projectile of 152-mm caliber near German tanks led to the overthrow of the enemy tank. In this sense, the psychological impact on the enemy will be notable.
    3. +2
      19 March 2015 09: 35
      The range of such a modern weapon is quite enough. We’re not fighting tea at sea.
    4. +4
      19 March 2015 12: 52
      Quote: bmw
      And why is the article on the issue of increasing the firing range?

      - not the fact that the range will increase significantly
      - why should it be increased in general? The existing smoothbore 125-mm on the good old 64-ke at the maximum elevation angle pounds at 18 km (or at 22 winked). The gunner does not see the target at the same time, shooting "according to the tables", from the spot, correction .. by the spotter laughing well, the tank and its BUT are not sharpened for such tasks request
      - need range - there are howitzers .. MLRS, finally smile

      Quote: bmw
      In addition, the tank acquires universal properties, can be used as a howitzer. And in combination with guided missiles are just fantastic opportunities. At long distances like a howitzer, at close range like a tank.

      Yes. And you can also cross the hedgehog with snake ..

      Nothing. A tank is a tank. Shooting within line of sight on the move is his job. AND just for thatI repeat trained his crew.

      Howitzer - she has completely different tasks.

      Why, one wonders, mix their tasks?

      Quote: bmw
      In addition, against the 152 mm projectile, dynamic armor is likely to be ineffective.


      - build up dynamic armor (so that it saves you from 152) it’s somehow easier than pushing an 152-mm gun into a tank .. again - there are all kinds of active defenses, all the same do not care about the caliber of what it knocks down .. it's a bit expensive Something is coming, don’t you?
      1. +2
        19 March 2015 16: 16
        building dynamic armor (so that it saves from 152 as well) is somehow easier than pushing a 152-mm gun into a tank .. again - there are still active defenses of all kinds, all the same do not care about the caliber of what it knocks down .. costly how- that’s coming, don’t you?
        yeah, a tank with this kind of protection will weigh 80 tons at least, and active defense is unlikely to be able to knock a 700-800 kilogram blank flying at a speed of 30-40 m / s.
        1. +1
          19 March 2015 17: 09
          Quote: Marssik
          yeah, a tank with that sort of protection will weigh tons of 80 at least

          Explosive Reactive Armor (Explosive Reactive Armor) is a type of protection for armored combat vehicles. It consists of metal containers containing one or more (usually two) elements of protection. The element of reactive armor (EDZ) consists of two layers of explosive (explosive) and a thin metal plate between them. " (c) Wiki.

          That's what I meant. "Dynamic armor" - miscalled it, litter.

          So .. where do the extra 20-30-40 tons come from (depending on the model of the tank)?

          How many explosives to cram, or what? Yes you, my friend, a sadist lol
          1. +1
            19 March 2015 17: 52
            Useful from such armor only against cumulative and tandem warheads, but against various "feathered crowbars" it is not very good, isn't it?) The point is to shoot cumulative when the crowbar flies through ...
            1. 0
              19 March 2015 18: 07
              Quote: Marssik
              ... but against various "feathered crowbars" she is not very good, isn't she?

              Not certainly in that way. Here, for example:

              Complex universal built DZ
              "CONTACT-V" (ELS 4C22)

              This complex provides protection against cumulative means (CS), and against armor-piercing projectiles (BPS). The cover of a DZ block made of thick high-strength steel, when struck by a BPS, generates a stream of high-speed fragments that detonate the EDZ. The impact of a moving thick cover and EDZ plates is sufficient to reduce the armor-piercing characteristics of both cumulative means and BPS
              .

              Fully: http://btvt.narod.ru/4/kontakt5_.htm

              This is such a V-shaped crap, on the tower from right to left near our tanks it is clearly visible wink
              1. Robespierre9
                0
                19 March 2015 18: 52
                Now the armor is hollow (LeoA6-7), ceramic or layered cake, the abrams in front of the tower has some kind of filler like uranium plates, plus in general rubber in my opinion, somewhere there was an article about this ..
              2. 0
                19 March 2015 19: 24
                Reduce, but how much can a uranium core weighing 20 kg be able to stop? Then, by the way, will it not fade into the ground?
                1. Rex
                  0
                  19 March 2015 19: 49
                  Font infect.
                  For a long time somehow there was even a note about problems with the armor. I do not remember the essence
                2. 0
                  19 March 2015 23: 22
                  Quote: Marssik
                  Reduce, but how much can a uranium core weighing 20 kg be able to stop? Then, by the way, will it not fade into the ground?

                  Colleague, do not distort .. wink

                  I said: you can increase the DZ so that she and 152 hold
                  You said: do not affect sub-caliber DZ
                  I said: it affects, how it affects ..

                  Total: you can increase the DZ, and it will be cheaper than shoving 152 mm into a tank. The opponent gets an "asymmetric response".

                  PS: And, IMHO, 20-tons of explosives per tank for this is not needed laughing
                  1. Rex
                    +1
                    20 March 2015 08: 26
                    Since we do not know the exact data on experiments with DZ, then guessing is useless.
                    It is well known that not every DZ guarantees protection against all available ammunition.
                    DZ can be increased, but for 152 mm it will be necessary at least twice. In this case, it is not only about the mass, but also the volume / dimensions.
              3. Rex
                +1
                19 March 2015 19: 24
                Here it would be necessary to make a reservation that it is not known whether it reflects all the BPS (are there any restrictions on speed, projectile mass, meeting angle, etc.)
        2. 0
          24 November 2016 13: 50
          Quote: Marssik
          and active defense is unlikely to be able to knock 700-800 kilogram discs flying at a speed of 30-40 m / s off the trajectory.

          I understand that it meant dynamic protection.
          Active defense is when a projectile is knocked down by a counter-projectile. A shrapnel shot, a machine-gun burst, or a shock core shot can be used as a counter-projectile. The last two are used in the T-14. Such opposition knocks the crowbar off course or destroys it.
          In addition, with a good reaction of the propulsion system, a simple evasion of the tank from the trajectory of an enemy shot is possible.
    5. 0
      20 March 2015 15: 18
      It seems to me that with an increase in caliber, the question will not be in range, but that the trajectory of the projectile will be more stable and there will be potential for more accurate firing at long range with unguided projectiles.
      also, do not ignore the obvious plus of increasing the efficiency of HE shells,
      which in combination with remote detonation and increased accuracy will give a quantum leap in the fight against unarmored or weakly armored targets.
  8. +4
    19 March 2015 08: 33
    It may make sense to launch a batch of 500 heavy tanks, and use a 152-mm cannon on them, with the subsequent gradual replacement of retired obsolete tanks instead of upgrading.
    Form separate heavy tank regiments so as not to disrupt the logistics and not arrange a variety of grades.
    Something seems to me that for the mass of 60 tons, which is predicted for the "Armata", the 125-mm cannon is rather weak for such an increase in the mass of the tank. request
    1. +4
      19 March 2015 08: 48
      the 125-mm gun is rather weak for such an increase in tank mass.
      Well, where does the mass of the tank ???? request
      1. +3
        19 March 2015 15: 12
        Quote: Patton5
        Well, where does the mass of the tank ???? request


        To make it possible with a shot. But what about ...
      2. +1
        20 March 2015 15: 33
        how is the gun ???
        it's an engine! the larger the gun, the greater the momentum from the shot, the faster the tank ... fellow
  9. +2
    19 March 2015 08: 50
    Another specific feature of 152-mm guns is the lack of worthy targets. According to the available data, modern domestic tanks, using the available ammunition, are capable of fighting various enemy armored vehicles. In such a case, the power of 152-mm guns may be excessive to fight tanks, which casts doubt on the very idea of ​​operating such weapons.
    Something it reminds me of. Oh yes! The Great Patriotic War. T - 34 - 76 and 57mm anti-tank gun. And then the Kursk and Tiger with Panther happened with their 88mm. But there was already an 85mm tank, but as always they didn’t.
    I just have a question. Can't you "accelerate" a 125mm projectile so that it is as powerful as 152mm? At least there will be no problems with the dimensions of the packing (and therefore the dimensions of the tank).
    1. Rex
      +1
      19 March 2015 09: 36
      The Panther had 75 mm, although no difference in essence.
      By the end of the war, the best 75-mm guns of the Germans pierced any of our tanks with 1 km or more.

      They tried to "disperse". As far as I remember, with ZhMV up to 2500 m / s, MV + electromagnet - up to 3000 m / s.
    2. +1
      19 March 2015 09: 40
      Quote: Hell Angel
      Can't you "accelerate" a 125mm projectile so that it is as powerful as 152mm? At least there will be no problems with the dimensions of the stowage (and therefore the dimensions of the tank)

      very difficult. Problems - the mass from the resistance of the walls of the gun to the strength of the projectile. The maximum achievable today value for a 125 mm gun is 1800 m / s further, according to experts, it is necessary either to increase the caliber or change the type of propellant (i.e., switch from combustion to explosion, and its stability, alas, is a very ambiguous question) and strengthen the barrel structure.
      1. +4
        19 March 2015 11: 06
        Rex and tchoni. Thank you gentlemen for the clarification. In general, as I understand it, the problem is like in small arms. Everything has reached almost its perfection. Now it remains only to go to "new physical principles" (already tired of this phrase).
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. 0
        24 November 2016 14: 12
        Quote: tchoni
        Problems - the mass from the resistance of the walls of the gun to the strength of the projectile.

        At high pressures, the crystal lattice of the metal becomes amorphous (flows). This property is used for "explosion welding", not welded by conventional methods, of various types of metals.
  10. +2
    19 March 2015 09: 34
    Another specific feature of 152-mm guns is the lack of worthy targets. According to the available data, modern domestic tanks, using the available ammunition, are capable of fighting various enemy armored vehicles. In such a case, the power of 152-mm guns may be excessive to fight tanks, which casts doubt on the very idea of ​​operating such weapons.

    The problem is actually real. From time to time, BMPT supporters generally express the idea that a tank gun is redundant for 90% of existing targets (phrases like "well, do not spend a 125 mm shot on a machine gunner?") In general, this opinion has a certain basis ... Because tank duels are our times - a rarity ...
    But a long barrel (especially in buildings), a small angle of vertical guidance and limited ammunition - the problems of modern tank guns are quite real ... With the transition to a long-barreled gun of 152 mm caliber, they will also increase.
    As a result, various solutions to this problem arise: from arming the tank with a tandem of quick-firing small crayons (up to 80 mm) + epic peter (see different BMPT variants) to using a short-barreled 152 mm howitzer - launcher, the lack of accuracy of which is planned to be compensated for by the presence of guided ammunition (bourgeois sheridan and m60 with a shileila complex, our facility is 775, etc.)
    1. Rex
      +2
      19 March 2015 09: 48
      There are too many aspects, and apparently there is no ideal solution.
      In fact, sometimes it’s not a sin for a half-tanker to go out of the tank - if he sits in good fortification and the artillery attack doesn’t take him.
      A direct fire shot (whether it is a gun or a rocket) is sometimes an alternative only to an airstrike with bombs of 100 kg or more.
      1. +1
        19 March 2015 11: 25
        But, something needs to be done with the artillery of the tank ... otherwise we will come to a situation where the weapons do not meet the objectives.
        Now the armament of the tank is "sharpened" for anti-tank missions ... But is this correct? Low-intensity conflicts in recent years show that the bulk of targets destroyed by a tank are pillboxes, buildings, etc. ..., and by no means enemy tanks ...
        1. Rex
          +1
          19 March 2015 11: 29
          Tank RPs are not weak.
          The previously mentioned action movie was telling how their lower body was torn off by their fighter.
          1. +2
            19 March 2015 13: 54
            Yes, the point is not in the power or versatility of the ammunition in particular and the ammunition as a whole (everything suits everyone here) ... The matter is the insufficient ammunition, the small angle of vertical guidance (both positive and negative), the long length of the gun’s barrel (very inconvenient in development). All this forces the search for a replacement or (and) addition to the main tank gun.
            When I spoke about imprisonment for anti-tank missions, I spoke more about the fact that they try to evaluate the quality of a tank, first of all, comparing it in a duel scenario with other tanks ... And this is not entirely correct ..
            1. +4
              19 March 2015 15: 17
              Quote: tchoni
              When I spoke about imprisonment for anti-tank missions, I spoke more about the fact that they try to evaluate the quality of a tank, first of all, comparing it in a duel scenario with other tanks ... And this is not entirely correct ..


              Yes .. But games like WOT do not reveal what exactly the 95% of the time does.
              But for some reason not everyone wants to study combined-arms tactics in command schools ... lol
              So compare bricks instead of comparing buildings.
              1. +2
                19 March 2015 17: 19
                Quote: Mik13
                But for some reason not everyone wants to study combined-arms tactics in command schools ..

                So boring to write notes ...
              2. 0
                20 March 2015 15: 41
                I must say that there are already a few outdated dogmas in this combined arms tactic, although it is useful to study the role of a tank ...
  11. 0
    19 March 2015 09: 44
    And what if not 152, then at least 130 mm for a start?
    1. Rex
      +2
      19 March 2015 09: 50
      The difference is not great, but the entire range has to be changed
  12. 0
    19 March 2015 10: 28
    155 for the tank is redundant, but 140 mm guns
    Designed and tested in Germany, USA, Israel.
    And a set of ammunition for them.
    In Merkava-4 140 mm gun mounted quickly, WITHOUT alteration of the tower.
    The number of shells in the tank is reduced, of course.

    The program was canceled in Israel after the appearance of the latest OBPS with an accelerator,
    allowing to maintain a constant velocity of the projectile at a distance of several kilometers
    (pierces 3 T-54 towers, set sideways in a row and flies further
    without deviating).
    1. Rex
      0
      19 March 2015 10: 40
      Apparently, historical experience and the desire for unification played a role here.
      If in AZ and DZ are much advanced, then the topic may return.
      It seems that all over the world they expect the appearance of electromagnetic guns within 10-20 years.
    2. 0
      19 March 2015 11: 20
      Quote: voyaka uh
      (pierces 3 T-54 towers, set sideways in a row and flies further
      without deviating).

      Is there any video evidence? Always wanted to see something like this with my own eyes
      1. Rex
        0
        19 March 2015 11: 25
        Yes, this can be believed. Could penetrate at high speed.
      2. 0
        19 March 2015 15: 32
        Yes, videos can be searched on YouTube
        It was, of course, an IMI commercial, but the tank targets were there.
        the real ones. There are slow motion shots of how a projectile breaks through towers.
        On the sides of the T-54 tower the armor is not as thick as in the forehead, but a demonstration
        still impressive.
    3. +5
      19 March 2015 11: 49
      and I read that there were 5 towers, and then another shell hit the building where the headquarters of the Hamas militants were located, killing three dangerous field commanders by hitting everyone in the head.
      1. Rex
        +1
        19 March 2015 11: 56
        The banter is a banter, but in the history itself there is nothing supernatural.
        3 T-54 towers on the side - about 500 mm, the penetration of modern "blanks" 600-800 mm.
        1. +2
          19 March 2015 12: 21
          Quote: Rex
          The banter is a banter, but in the history itself there is nothing supernatural.
          3 T-54 towers on the side - about 500 mm, the penetration of modern "blanks" 600-800 mm.

          600mm monoliths, and in this case the screen effect will work. After the first wall the shell is at least a little, but warps. The next wall will already enter obliquely, and each time there will be more. A newspaper sheet even makes a bullet fired from small arms walk.
          1. Rex
            +1
            19 March 2015 12: 28
            I meant the thickness itself.
            There is no information about the rest - neither the velocity of the projectile, nor its type, nor the distance.
            If the speed at a meeting was 1700-1800 m / s (it is not lost by the condition), then a modern sub-caliber feathered .. In fact, it pierced about 6 mm 80 times.
            In my opinion, it does not look fiction.
          2. +1
            19 March 2015 15: 37
            The uranium arrow does not crumple, like a tungsten, when
            passage of monolithic armor, and "self-sharpens".
            And in density for uranium, steel is like butter.
            An interesting effect, because of it, the Americans chose uranium for OBPS.
            1. +1
              19 March 2015 16: 49
              I just remember how much later there was a stench about the residual radiation after the shelling and the poisoning scandals.
              1. Rex
                +1
                19 March 2015 16: 56
                Yes, they hushed up quickly. And they did not advertise widely
                Why worry about losing Aborigines.
              2. 0
                20 March 2015 08: 44
                There is a little thing in what? depleted uranchik, AFTER a blow, he begins to fonit .... Such a star fot in the appendage ...
                1. Rex
                  0
                  20 March 2015 09: 03
                  I know little about uranium-238.
                  It is believed that it is dangerous and that it is dangerous at the level of statistical error.
                  I don’t know if serious research has been conducted.
              3. +2
                20 March 2015 13: 18
                Depleted uranium has low radioactivity, but high toxicity, especially if it gets inside the "ceramic aerosol" that is formed when the ammunition enters.
                1. Rex
                  +1
                  20 March 2015 14: 29
                  There are basically two extreme opinions "roaming":
                  1. Yes, it is much less toxic of arsenic, etc., and the radioactivity is almost zero.
                  2. Causes oncology with a significant time of contact or ingestion.
                  In short, it is not clear what will happen in a year or 10 lie 10-20 kg of this good in the garden or under the bed ...
                  1. 0
                    April 7 2015 07: 10
                    In fact, this is not even about opinions, but about specific studies that speak of exactly the same increase in cases of oncology, and not one or two. Actually, after these studies, the supposedly harmless depleted uranium by the NATO itself began to be transported in special containers, continuing to repeat the lack of evidence.
  13. +3
    19 March 2015 11: 04
    The main advantage of the 152-mm guns is that it does not need to pierce armor. No need for sub-caliber or cumulative ammunition. The power of the 55 kilogram blank is enough to either break the armor or stupidly break the tank
    1. Rex
      +4
      19 March 2015 11: 12
      I have met more than once in the press the opinion that even a land mine of 152/155 mm poses a serious threat.
  14. +3
    19 March 2015 11: 18
    In this case, the power of the 152-mm guns may be excessive for fighting tanks, which casts doubt on the very idea of ​​operating such weapons.

    This is not entirely correct. When hit from a gun 125 mm in the tank does not always lead to a guaranteed defeat. Out of 152 - guaranteed. If the enemy reinforces the reservation, then the tanks will simply turn into heavy mammoths, slow and low mobility. Personally, my opinion is that such a tool should be in order. And I hope the designers have already prepared a suitable module for Armata. The guns, that is, are ready to become operational.
    1. Rex
      +1
      19 March 2015 11: 21
      So the enemy has guns.
      Everything was already ready by the beginning of the 90s, but the collapse of the USSR "interfered".
      1. 0
        19 March 2015 12: 08
        At this stage, the protection of many Western tanks comes at the expense of increasing armor. What increases the weight. Our security is acquired through remote sensing, which does not greatly affect weight. Yes, and I once heard a true comparison about our tanks and enemy tanks - we have a light and maneuverable knight on the battlefield, they also have a knight in heavy armor that makes him less mobile
        1. Rex
          0
          19 March 2015 12: 16
          The typical comparison "ours are light, maneuverable" and "theirs are heavy and clumsy" is false, for the most part. This is true only in relation to specific machines at a specific time.
          If we take the Second World War, then the bulk of the German tanks were no heavier than ours.
          1. 0
            19 March 2015 12: 21
            Quote: Rex
            If we take the Second World War, then the bulk of the German tanks were no heavier than ours.

            Other times, other requirements. And about the weight - it’s better lighter than heavier. At least transportation is already an advantage.
            1. Rex
              +2
              19 March 2015 12: 35
              Weighting has gone since the 80s. It was necessary to somehow hold our 125 mm.
              And the volume booked with them is higher. Mobility was achieved by greater power.
              On Abramsah and Leopard-2 no one expected to get to the Urals - to fight back.
  15. 0
    19 March 2015 11: 39
    Correct 7000 km / sq. cm to 7000 kg / cm² and remove the photo of the layout of the Kharkov boxer - it has nothing to do with 195 objects.
    1. 0
      19 March 2015 13: 47
      Quote: Engineer
      remove the photo of the layout of the Kharkov boxer - it has nothing to do with the 195 object.

      Well, how can I say ... he is clearly his predecessor, on many issues
  16. +3
    19 March 2015 12: 42
    Is it true that any tank can be destroyed from a shoulder, I apologize for the term not according to the charter, a grenade launcher? Then all the more from any good gun it should be possible. You need only a good modern shell. I am not an expert, but I think so. Then what is the point of replacing the mastered caliber with an uncomfortable super large one? As a joke - and to scare.
    1. Rex
      +2
      19 March 2015 12: 49
      Modern RPG, without DZ (mounted or built-in) will penetrate any tank into the forehead.
      Although to break through and destroy - not the same thing. Oh how it goes.
      You just have to live up to the range of the shot and get there.
  17. +2
    19 March 2015 14: 02
    With the dimensions of the guns 152 or 155 mm, the dimensions will seriously increase, here the tower, control systems, ammunition, the tank will grow at least in size, I think 5–10 tons at least, and this and other power plant.

    This is already another level ... But progress leads to this. Then, as colleagues already wrote, we need at least one 30-45 mm cannon (infantry fire, etc. of an easily armored target), and a machine gun 7,62 or 12,6 .... and this is a land cruiser ....

    There were already options, let's remember ... :)
    1. +2
      19 March 2015 15: 25
      KVM, nothing will grow anywhere. For this growth, it is necessary to redo the entire transport network - the railways will not be allowed to carry either by weight or by size with us. Yes, and wheeled tractors have problems.

      But the tanks do not go far under their own power.

      They have projects of promising vehicles with a combat weight of 80 tons, but there the mass gets through additional protective modules that are installed locally. I think these shaitan machines will remain so in the project.
  18. 0
    19 March 2015 14: 03
    Here is our story .........
  19. 0
    19 March 2015 14: 17
    Quote: Rex
    They tried to "disperse". As far as I remember, with ZhMV up to 2500 m / s, MV + electromagnet - up to 3000 m / s.

    You can also recall the projects of light-gas guns, multi-chamber guns and conical trunks. The people rode out with might and main wink

    The problem of active throwing is the presence of the maximum possible speed, determined by a) the power of the powder and the adiabatic index of its gases; b) the ratio of the mass of the charge to the mass of the projectile. You can’t imagine much with the chemical composition — the maximum permissible degree of nitration for nitrocellulose is 14,5%; above this value, gunpowder no longer burns, but explodes.
    An increase in the mass of the propellant charge leads to a small increase in speed and a large increase in pressure (i.e., a stronger and heavier barrel is needed). The overload is growing, the wall thickness of the projectile must be increased, which leads to a decrease in the filling ratio. The thermal efficiency of the charge generally drops to a ridiculous 8-13%. In general, there are a lot of minuses.
    So there’s a wolen-nolance, but you’ll have to come up with something to speed up.
    1. Rex
      +1
      19 March 2015 14: 31
      Well, everyone is waiting for the electromagnet.
      True, for this, a technological leap is needed immediately in several directions.
      As a result, the lure of big fluff remains smile
      1. +1
        19 March 2015 15: 03
        why immediately electromagnet? You can still use the EXPLOSION for throwing .... Here, however, breakthrough technologies must be the same, God forbid .... So we don’t parims and use the good old 125 mm gun ....
        1. Rex
          0
          19 March 2015 15: 08
          The electromagnet gives the maximum (calculated) speed. And the achievements over 30 years have accumulated quite a few.
          True, in a number of tested images the speed was called significantly less than the once claimed 5000 m / s
          1. 0
            19 March 2015 17: 18
            and a megawatt generator ... in addition ...
            according to the feed website
            The system tested so far was extremely cumbersome and consumed a lot of power (according to unofficial data, up to 25 megawatts per shot). At the same time, the accuracy of the weapon was low, and the barrel resource was enough for several shots, after which its complete replacement was required.
            This is an experimental AU for the Zimwolt destroyer.
            So imagine that even if you have a compact capacitor, a lightweight generator and a megawatt engine, you will stand still for 25 seconds to make one shot? (by the way, at the Zwolt, the experimental railguns were replaced with six-inch guns ....)
            1. 0
              19 March 2015 18: 37
              Quote: tchoni
              and a megawatt generator ... in addition ...


              By the way, yes - EMNIP, the power of 122 mm howitzers roughly corresponds to the capacity of an average power plant. She just develops it for a very small period of time.
              So this amount of energy somewhere will need to be taken, accumulated and given away very quickly. And all this happiness within one tank ..
              1. Rex
                0
                19 March 2015 19: 37
                Hope however :)
                The plans are tanks on electric motors or hybrids (although this is easier)
            2. Rex
              0
              19 March 2015 19: 33
              The guns on the ground equipment are more compact, but there is less space.
              The question has been struggling since at least the 80s. I saw a vide about 3 developments. So far, everyone only shoots from the "eletsrostaniya".
              But they are fighting. It's a question of time.
  20. wanderer_032
    0
    19 March 2015 14: 44
    There is a huge amount of different ammunition of 125 mm caliber in the warehouses, which is why the parallel operation of tanks with guns of two calibers, not to mention the complete transfer of ground forces to new tanks with weapons of a larger caliber, does not seem quite advisable.

    So after all, there are no many such machines. Tanks with 152-mm guns could be used to form assault mechanized units.
    In combat use, a more powerful armament of such vehicles would make it possible to work on enemy facilities that were heavily fortified in engineering terms from a greater distance without entering the destruction zone of its anti-aircraft brigade.
    Moreover, to work in the line of sight through optoelectronic devices OMS.

    Heavy artillery working on a hinged trajectory is good, but you can’t drag an ACS battery to the front edge. They work from afar.
    1. +1
      19 March 2015 15: 31
      Quote: wanderer_032
      In combat use, a more powerful armament of such vehicles would make it possible to work on enemy facilities that were heavily fortified in engineering terms from a greater distance without entering the destruction zone of its anti-aircraft brigade.
      Moreover, to work in the line of sight through optoelectronic devices OMS.

      Heavy artillery working on a hinged trajectory is good, but you can’t drag an ACS battery to the front edge. They work from afar.


      Of course it is possible. But why? Modern art eats everything, and at the same time without any problems. After WWII no one bothers with particularly concrete field fortification - on the contrary, they are trying to dig into the ground.

      At the forefront, an art napper will feel much better than a piece of iron ...
      And if all of a sudden - so the target was illuminated with a laser - and some Krasnopol without any ubertank will do everything.
    2. 0
      19 March 2015 19: 33
      Then division into classes will turn out again. Heavy from 152mm, medium, light. Interesting but unlikely.
  21. +1
    19 March 2015 15: 41
    Quote: wanderer_032
    There is a huge amount of different ammunition of 125 mm caliber in the warehouses, which is why the parallel operation of tanks with guns of two calibers, not to mention the complete transfer of ground forces to new tanks with weapons of a larger caliber, does not seem quite advisable.

    So after all, there are no many such machines. Tanks with 152-mm guns could be used to form assault mechanized units.
    In combat use, a more powerful armament of such vehicles would make it possible to work on enemy facilities that were heavily fortified in engineering terms from a greater distance without entering the destruction zone of its anti-aircraft brigade.
    Moreover, to work in the line of sight through optoelectronic devices OMS.

    Heavy artillery working on a hinged trajectory is good, but you can’t drag an ACS battery to the front edge. They work from afar.


    And since when 20-25 km, is this the cutting edge?
    And from such a distance, Krasnopol-M1 fired and normal, nobody canceled the target designation.
    And to turn up a special tank for this, I don’t see the point.
    And then, what to storm then?
    What are some particularly powerful bunkers like in WWII?
    Times have changed, caliber is not enough for powerful bunkers, it’s easier to use a rocket ...
    IMHO, there are no goals for such calibers, 125 is still enough for armored vehicles, and the transition to large calibers is fraught with numerous problems that are not worth such costs.
    1. torque
      0
      April 10 2015 19: 25
      Watch any video of modern urban battles - you will be amazed at how long the most ordinary high-rise buildings bathe.
  22. sims2000
    +1
    19 March 2015 17: 22
    Article plus. Everything is correctly laid out on the shelves
  23. +1
    19 March 2015 20: 36
    As far as I know, from 152 the T-14s have so far been due to the fact that they do not have time to bring it to mind (increased power requires a better barrel, and with this we have long had trouble because our metal processing quality is inferior to the west), and you need a tank faster. In general, 152 mm has more pluses than minuses: This is an ATGM with horse penetration under 1500, this is a brutal landmine. By the way, 152 is likely to provide just the penetration of any MBT in the forehead, while the same abrams, leo and the 90s of the latest modifications do not provide guaranteed penetration of each other in the forehead.
  24. -1
    19 March 2015 20: 45
    I would put two guns at the same time.
    Increases the chance of hitting. The defeat.
    KAZ will not cope.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +2
      19 March 2015 23: 10
      Quote: Michael_59
      I would put two guns at the same time.
      Increases the chance of hitting. The defeat.
      KAZ will not cope.


      2 of the barrel is still not solid ... What if, out of nowhere, in an open field from around the corner is an enemy tank company?
      1. +1
        20 March 2015 21: 41
        Quote: Mik13
        What if out of nowhere


        On this you can fly into space)))
    4. The comment was deleted.
  25. 0
    20 March 2015 01: 53
    As in 41m with the ZIS-2, the lack of decent goals lol
  26. torque
    +1
    April 10 2015 19: 23
    Lord, how can we talk about the excess power of 152 mm ??? In Syria, in Ukraine, wherever you look, high-rise buildings have been picking their 125-mm for days on end and all the same there are RPG survivors shooting from there.
    It is written as if a modern tank is primarily a tank destroyer, some kind.
    152 mm will allow: to have a powerful land mine that will effectively destroy capital structures and fortifications, which can also hit any modern tank if it is not destroyed, then demolish all external devices, damage the gun or jam the tower, shell or kill the crew; it will be possible to make human ATGMs with a strike core and hit any modern tank in the roof; maybe it would be possible to make thermobaric ammunition - this would already be an apocalypse tank.
    How can you talk about a PERSPECTIVE tank from the point of view "we have a lot of old shells in the warehouses - we should shoot"? It is promising because for the future.
    In short, my opinion is pure politics that the "promising" MBT has a 125-mm cannon.