Military Review

"Pinocchio" on "Sunshine"

164
During the Vietnam War, American gunsmiths proposed a new type of ammunition: a bomb sprayed a flammable liquid around itself, and then set it on fire. The explosive combustion of the liquid hit the target not only with a shock wave and high temperature, but also with pressure drops in the explosion area due to air burnout. The new Fuel Bomb (fuel bomb, in the USSR the terms "volumetric detonating" or "vacuum ammunition" were used) were immediately put into service and began to search for options for its use. Both in America and in the Soviet Union, active development of such ammunition began: aviation bombs, artillery shells and even infantry flamethrowers.


"Pinocchio" on "Sunshine"


Testing of the latter showed the promise of using space-detonating combat units on multiple rocket launchers. Omsk design bureau of transport engineering was assigned to carry out relevant research and development of the new MLRS, designed specifically for vacuum shells.
Immediately a problem arose: the warhead of the rocket would be too dangerous for the crew, therefore, in order to avoid accidental hits and detonation of ammunition, it was decided to reserve a package of guides. And the armor added extra weight. I had to abandon the idea of ​​a truck-based chassis. Chassis decided to do on the base tank T-72. Instead of a tower, a package of 30 guides for missiles was installed on it on a rotary base, all the necessary equipment was put inside, and the crew was reduced to three people: commander, driver and operator. So the combat vehicle of the complex was made (BM, or “Object 634”).

For the delivery of missiles and facilitating loading, a KrAZ-255B truck-made vehicle was loaded with a crane and guides for loading the BM package. In the stowed position, the block of guides of TZM with rockets is covered by an armored box.
Tests of the new complex, which received the TOC index (a heavy flame-thrower system), began in the 1980 year.

The 220 mm caliber missiles made a splash - there was almost nothing left of the training targets at the range. This effect is more than compensated for the relatively short range of combat, up to 3600 meters. And the armor remaining from the original T-72, solidly increased the survivability of the machine on the battlefield. Nevertheless, the manual on combat use of the TOC-1 recommended to go to the position of firing directly in front of the volley, under the guise of tanks, quickly shoot the entire set of missiles and go to the shelter. This tactic was successfully tested in Afghanistan at the end of the 80.



After some modifications, the complex went into service with the USSR-TOC-1 complex, and for some reason some unknown wits called it “Buratino”.

Since the firing range required quick and precise actions, and the type of ammunition required to shoot as accurately as possible, a number of special equipment was installed on the BM. Optical sight for aiming, 1D14 laser rangefinder with measuring accuracy up to 10 meters, tilt sensor of the PB2.329.04 machine and computing complex, according to the readings of the rangefinder and sensors, automatically determining the required elevation angle of the guide block. Manual guidance is also possible, but it requires more time and better crew skills.

As already mentioned, at the end of the 80's a new system was tested in Afghanistan. During the operation "Typhoon" in the winter of 88-89-ies. “Pinocchio”, under the cover of armored vehicles, attacked the positions of the Mujahideen using the tactic “hit-run away”. In the mountainous conditions of Afghanistan, the effect of vacuum ammunition increased due to the reflection of shock waves from the mountains. True, for greater safety, the three extreme "pipes" on each side of the bag were left empty.

The second combat use case of TOC-1 was in March of 2000, in Chechnya, in the battle for the village of Komsomolskoye. Then the general public learned about the system, and unscrupulous members of the press began to spread false rumors and legends about it.

Since the end of the 90-x in the Omsk transport engineering design bureau, work has been carried out to improve the "Buratino". The new version of the complex has been called TOC-1A "Suntsep". Now, the system included a new BM-1 combat vehicle (634 object) with an updated set of equipment and a package of guides to the 24 missiles (3 series of 8 units). Also updated and TZM, unifying it with the BM-1: crane, guides for loading and protective cover installed on the chassis of the T-72 tank. The structure of one calculation includes two such machines, called TMZ-T (563 object). And, perhaps, the main innovation of the “SunTech” is the new missiles, which allow firing to a distance of 6 kilometers, while maintaining the same accuracy and accuracy.

At the moment, "Buratino" and "Solneptek" are in service with Russia (both complexes) and Kazakhstan (TOC-1А only). The total number of heavy flamethrower systems was not officially named, but according to various estimates, it is 10-20 units from Russia and 3-5 from Kazakhstan.



164 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 2 November 2013 08: 58
    10
    They decided to make the chassis on the basis of the T-72 tank. Instead of a tower, a package of 30 missile guides was installed on it on a rotary base, all the necessary equipment was put inside, and the crew was reduced to three people: a commander, a driver and an operator.
    But interestingly, WHO was reduced?
    1. kotvov
      kotvov 2 November 2013 10: 12
      +9
      GUN WITH MACHINES.
    2. xetai9977
      xetai9977 2 November 2013 10: 13
      +8
      A small amendment - "Solntsepeki" are also in the arsenal of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces.
      1. Marek Rozny
        Marek Rozny 2 November 2013 19: 14
        +6
        Quote: xetai9977
        A small amendment - "Solntsepeki" are also in the arsenal of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces.

        in-in. I was also surprised to read that only Russians and Kazakhs have this system. Azerbaijanis bought this summer.
        By the way, I have a question. Kazakhs are going to remake the old T-72 with Omsk in TOS and BMPT. But does Azerbaijan plan to reforge old tanks or will it buy new ones in Russia? Did you have any info on this subject?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. xetai9977
          xetai9977 2 November 2013 22: 03
          +7
          All previously purchased tanks from Belarus and Ukraine, about 250 in number, were modernized. 96 were purchased from Russia in the summer. New acquisitions are unlikely to be planned now. Here is the unloading of "Solntsepyoks" in the Baku port.
    3. Serg 122
      Serg 122 2 November 2013 10: 25
      -4
      Charger ...
      1. nnz226
        nnz226 2 November 2013 14: 05
        +5
        The T-72 actually has an automatic loader! And a crew of 3's staff.
    4. Tommygun
      Tommygun 5 November 2013 14: 47
      +1
      I think it means a reduction in comparison with the calculation of the wheel system, and not in comparison with the crew of the T-72.
    5. mvg
      mvg 29 November 2013 01: 01
      0
      the operator has nothing to do
    6. ksan
      ksan 2 December 2013 21: 45
      0
      svp67 SU November 2, 2013 08:58

      They decided to make the chassis on the basis of the T-72 tank. Instead of a tower, a package of 30 missile guides was installed on it on a rotary base, all the necessary equipment was put inside, and the crew was reduced to three people: a commander, a driver and an operator.
      But interestingly, WHO was reduced?
      Dude who ran behind the transmission with a bucket. wink
  2. svp67
    svp67 2 November 2013 09: 03
    +1
    It would be interesting to integrate "Solntsepek" into the tank units ...
    1. ramsi
      ramsi 2 November 2013 09: 16
      +3
      it would be more interesting to introduce a thermobaric shell into the tank’s ammunition, but where to put it? ..
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 2 November 2013 11: 32
      +2
      How are the Israelis in perspective? They are not ready for this yet.
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 2 November 2013 16: 25
        0
        no, with an inhabited tower - no, only with an armored capsule; and even then, you need a serious reservation and, possibly, the inclination of the back wall; and the tower - like a kick panel
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 2 November 2013 16: 32
          0
          That's not the point. The control system is not ready for this.
          1. ramsi
            ramsi 2 November 2013 16: 35
            0
            and what is so special? the initial speed can be adjusted to any - convenient, weight - about the regular ... What is the problem?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 2 November 2013 17: 06
              +5
              The problem is that they are currently designed for decentralized use. They and KShMka need, which will immediately crawl behind the tanks, a system that ensures the full-fledged introduction of amendments to the AUT-targets will be defeated in the immediate vicinity of their troops. A large range of ammunition - need high-explosive. In short, a bunch of bells and whistles. so that the machine could fully function as a means of fire support for tank units.
              1. ramsi
                ramsi 2 November 2013 17: 16
                +2
                damn, Lopatov, you're too smart, I can’t keep up with you. I mean - the thermobaric charge in the wrapper of the tank ammunition, even for simplicity of understanding, can be identical to a high-explosive fragmentation ... What’s the gag?
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 2 November 2013 17: 20
                  +2
                  I honestly don’t know why there are no thermobaric shells. After all, this is simply two explosives with different detonation speeds and with metal powder. Maybe some restrictions on the maximum acceleration?
                  1. ramsi
                    ramsi 2 November 2013 17: 35
                    +2
                    I am glad that we understood each other. The problem, most likely, is in our bosses (well, you know, the stars are big - crazy to x-y), well, in fact - while there is no armata with its armored capsule, "no" - and there is no court.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 2 November 2013 17: 47
                      +2
                      The fact is that there are not even experimental shells of this kind. And therefore I am not sure that such technically possible. The only option is the thermobaric warhead of tank guided missiles.
                      1. ramsi
                        ramsi 2 November 2013 18: 06
                        0
                        Well, again ... Smoothbore gun - yes? .. Thin-walled shell - yes? .. Any initial speed - yes? .. Shovels, what - no ?!
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 2 November 2013 18: 23
                        +1
                        First, the cast angle.
                        Secondly, acceleration, not initial speed
                      3. ramsi
                        ramsi 2 November 2013 18: 30
                        0
                        Shovels, come on!?.
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 2 November 2013 18: 47
                        +2
                        Rockets gain their maximum speed much slower than shells. And therefore the load on the "stuffing" is less.
                      5. ramsi
                        ramsi 2 November 2013 18: 59
                        +1
                        Lopatov, first of all, I’ve got a lot of fun; secondly, I understand that it is less in rank and service life, and therefore, must give up - I give up. But I think we understood each other
                      6. sesame
                        sesame 3 November 2013 10: 10
                        +1
                        Or maybe it’s the volume of explosives? In a rocket it is much more than in a shell.
          2. svp67
            svp67 3 November 2013 09: 05
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            I honestly don’t know why there are no thermobaric shells.

            Do they even have them - well, at least artillery? What will be the effectiveness of this ammunition, because a lot of "composition" will not fit into the projectile, you cannot make it especially "thin-walled", so the charge is "unified", that is, the forces acting on tank shells are the same, well, except for the BOPS, there is also an additional charge there. .. In this regard, an OFS with "ready-made lethal elements" and a radio fuse is more effective ...
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 3 November 2013 10: 37
              0
              There are no shells at all. In artillery, or rather in the RV and A only warhead anti-tank missiles and rockets rockets MLRS
  • Witold
    Witold 2 November 2013 19: 22
    -8
    Ready for a long time. Until they reach the firing line of 6 km. ash will remain from them.
    The drone will detect and correct, and "Spike" (Tamuz) will destroy.
    Shooting by the missile itself transferred to the CP.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 2 November 2013 20: 06
      +7
      Hurray-ah, here it is, wunderwaffe. And the enemy will gallantly wait until the drone detects and destroys the "spike". First, the drone will be cut, then the same will be done with the ATGM.
      1. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 3 November 2013 19: 11
        0
        Quote: Spade
        First, a drone will be cut, then the same thing will be done with the ATGM.

        This is subject to sane armed forces.
      2. Professor
        Professor 6 November 2013 14: 56
        -1
        Quote: Spade
        First, a drone will be cut, then the same thing will be done with the ATGM.

        The experience of military operations shows that UAVs are practically invulnerable. Se la vie ... request
        1. The Indian Joe
          The Indian Joe 7 November 2013 10: 36
          0




          Quote Professor

          Military experience shows that UAVs are virtually invulnerable
          laughing

          1. Professor
            Professor 7 November 2013 10: 57
            -1
            Read about General Shamanov about how the Russian army was powerless in front of Georgian UAVs.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 7 November 2013 11: 13
              +1
              Due to the fact that he forgot something. Well, or the commanders subordinate to him forgot.
              1. Professor
                Professor 7 November 2013 11: 23
                -1
                Quote: Spade
                Due to the fact that he forgot something. Well, or the commanders subordinate to him forgot.

                Well yes? They sat there for a long time and tediously, because this is not about the war of three eights.
                Interlocutor: Vladimir Shamanov: “Sharpen the army structure for today's wars”

                Quote: Spade
                The first launch will be spotted by the Aistenok, and the artillery will work perfectly in the installation.

                In theory, in practice it is unlikely. The launch takes place 25 km from the target and in order to detect it, you need to know about the square of two kilometers by two from where they will be launched.

                Quote: Spade
                If you do not prepare for their appearance. And do not make sure that the funds capable of shooting down the drone remained in the PDP.

                So I say the experience of military operations (what happened, not what happens) shows ...
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 7 November 2013 11: 31
                  +1
                  Quote: Professor
                  Well yes? They sat there for a long time and tediously, because this is not about the war of three eights.

                  The Airborne Forces have the ability to shoot down drones.

                  Quote: Professor
                  In theory, in practice it is unlikely. The launch takes place 25 km from the target and in order to detect it, you need to know about the square of two kilometers by two from where they will be launched.

                  This means that the "Zoo" will be detected. In this case, the installation will immediately receive the rank of a priority target for artillery. Since it will be counted as the launcher of tactical missiles.

                  Professor, the child prodigy does not exist, it's time to grow up.
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 7 November 2013 11: 40
                    0
                    Quote: Spade
                    The Airborne Forces have the ability to shoot down drones.

                    The Airborne Forces were not alone there, even the iron-armed troops were sitting there, not to mention the "Abkhazian" aviation.

                    Quote: Spade
                    This means that the "Zoo" will be detected. In this case, the installation will immediately receive the rank of a priority target for artillery. Since it will be counted as the launcher of tactical missiles.

                    And the zoo is resting. This is the NLOS cruise missile and the maximum that the Zoo can do is detect it already in flight somewhere in the middle of the trajectory.

                    Quote: Spade
                    Professor, the child prodigy does not exist, it's time to grow up.

                    And I do not claim that the weapon is a miracle, but only point to its effectiveness based on real combat use.
                  2. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 7 November 2013 12: 10
                    0
                    Quote: Professor
                    The Airborne Forces were not alone there, even the iron-armed troops were sitting there, not to mention the "Abkhazian" aviation.

                    Nevertheless, these funds were not considered necessary to take with you.


                    Quote: Professor
                    And the zoo is resting. This is the NLOS cruise missile and the maximum that the Zoo can do is detect it already in flight somewhere in the middle of the trajectory.

                    No. He will detect it from the moment it is launched. Because it is intended for this kind of work.


                    Quote: Professor
                    And I do not claim that the weapon is a miracle, but only point to its effectiveness based on real combat use.

                    Against an adversary having intelligence tools and the ability to implement intelligence obtained by these tools? These missiles have no such experience.
                  3. Professor
                    Professor 7 November 2013 12: 24
                    -1
                    Quote: Spade
                    Nevertheless, these funds were not considered necessary to take with you.

                    In Russian, this is called excuses. fellow

                    Quote: Spade
                    No. He will detect it from the moment it is launched. Because it is intended for this kind of work.

                    If he has already learned to see beyond the hills, then yes. I am hinting that the missile is winged and does not fly along a ballistic trajectory, that is, it is impossible to calculate where it was launched from. Lay out the coordinates of the launch site of Tamuz from the above video?

                    Quote: Spade
                    Against an adversary having intelligence tools and the ability to implement intelligence obtained by these tools? These missiles have no such experience.

                    Let's finish with the drones, and in the meantime I will show where the Tamuzs were launched from.

                    PS
                    This is where Tamuzs fired west. Good luck in determining the launch site and the fight against PU.
                    33°10'58.16"N 35°34'7.95"E
                  4. The Indian Joe
                    The Indian Joe 8 November 2013 00: 17
                    0
                    No. He will detect it from the moment it is launched. Because it is intended for this kind of work.

                    If he has already learned to see beyond the hills, then yes.
                    - But is it anything that a missile launch is elementarily detected from space?
                  5. Professor
                    Professor 8 November 2013 08: 15
                    +1
                    Quote: Injun Joe
                    - But is it anything that a missile launch is elementarily detected from space?

                    I heard a ring, but I don’t know where he is.
                    Launches of ICBMs (a missile weighing a hundred tons) are detected and not elementary from space, but here we are talking about anti-tank missiles weighing ten kg. Its launch from space is spotted only by Martians and experts such as you. fool
                  6. The Indian Joe
                    The Indian Joe 8 November 2013 20: 23
                    0
                    How interesting - individual people can be seen from outer space, but for some reason the flare of a rocket with a temperature hundreds of times higher than the human body is not visible, do you really think so, ignorant? Go learn physics - at least re-read the school textbook ...

                    And tell us about "unbreakable UAVs", before which "the Russian Air Force is powerless"))) [media = http: //]
                  7. Professor
                    Professor 8 November 2013 21: 56
                    0
                    Quote: Injun Joe
                    How interesting - individual people can be seen from outer space, but for some reason the flare of a rocket with a temperature hundreds of times higher than the human body is not visible, do you really think so, ignorant? Go learn physics - at least re-read the school textbook ...

                    You are talking nonsense again, as usual. What is the resolution of the satellite you know? Let's get your materiel. What kind of companion are you going to see an individual person? There you can "see" only a fat man lying wide ... and then if you look well. And not by the thermal signature, but the ATGM is so small that no one can distinguish it from space except for you and lunatics like you.

                    Quote: Injun Joe
                    - especially for the layman, watch the video of the UAV interception again:

                    You show this video to the children in the yard. So, let's get the statistics of interception of drones per 100 thousand hours of their flight time. Was there a boy? wink

                    Quote: Injun Joe
                    Where did I write that "We intercept the Grad shell with the S-400"? Quote in the studio, Mr. Brechlo.
                    ". A rocket controlled by a fiber-optic cable is taken away with two antennas" - where did I write this? Quote in the studio, liar Professor.
                    "We detect the launch of an ATGM from space" - where did I write that we detect the launch of an ATGM from space? Quote in the studio.

                    Again with your nose in yours ... poke? Please, but I warn you, I feed for the last time.
                    About space (recall, we are talking about Tamuz):
                    Native American Joe UA Today, 00:17 | "Pinocchio" on the "Sun"
                    No. He will detect it from the moment it is launched. Because it is intended for this kind of work.

                    If he has already learned to see beyond the hills, then yes. - But is it anything that a missile launch is elementarily detected from space?


                    About C-400 (recall, we are talking about the interception of the Castle):
                    Native American Joe UA October 31, 2013 11:06 | Israel's missile defense system: expensive but not effective
                    For example, compared with the S-400.

                    About antennas (recall, we are talking about Tamuz):
                    Native American Joe UA Yesterday, 10:44 | "Pinocchio" on the "Sun"
                    A shot of the missile itself transmitted to the control unit is a missile, as I understand it, with remote control. The question for you is what will happen if a powerful, reliably hidden interference generator with several spaced antennas works in the target zone? The signal level of the generator in the approach zone of the rocket will in any case be higher than the signal level of the transmitter.
                  8. The Indian Joe
                    The Indian Joe 9 November 2013 13: 00
                    0
                    What is the satellite resolution you know? Give your materiel. What kind of companion are you going to see an individual person
                    - for the visible part of the spectrum, the resolution is, under ideal conditions, 0,3 meters, usually 60 centimeters. Since the atmosphere is more permeable to infrared waves, it’s really easy to see a rocket’s torch, at least in the form of a bright dot, primarily because of its high temperature.

                    here the ATGM is so small
                    - I ask you as an "expert", how many METERS is the heat of the flame of the rocket launched?

                    You show this video to the children in the yard
                    - Who proved that this is video editing? The Georgian official side admitted that all this is true, learn the materiel -
                    The Georgian Foreign Ministry demanded that Russia officially apologize and pay damages for the Georgian unmanned aircraft shot down on April 20 over the territory of Abkhazia.



                    And, again, I ask you to answer how your nonsense "UAVs are practically indestructible" is linked to the destruction of an Israeli-made Hermes drone by an old MiG-29, with just one air-to-air missile, from the first attempt, without any attempts to protect or countering destruction by the drone? It is already clear that this phrase of yours does not match your image of a know-it-all, a hardware expert. And even your translation of the arrows into other people's inaccuracies will not save you - the people around you at least do not pretend to be all-knowing trolls.
                  9. Professor
                    Professor 10 November 2013 00: 02
                    0
                    Quote: Injun Joe
                    for the visible part of the spectrum, the resolution is, under ideal conditions, 0,3 meters, usually 60 centimeters. Since the atmosphere is more permeable to infrared waves, it’s really easy to see a rocket’s torch, at least in the form of a bright dot, primarily because of its high temperature.

                    Bravo youth, the ice has broken. 30 cm is not enough to see an individual person. Tell me how much is needed? However, ATGMs are much smaller than humans. Moreover, the thermal signature of ATGMs from space has not yet been observed by anyone. Well, unless you.

                    Quote: Injun Joe
                    - I ask you as an "expert", how many METERS is the heat of the flame of the rocket launched?

                    As an expert I answer. The launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile is distinguishable from space, so it excuse me weighs a hundred tons, and ATGM weighing a dozen kg are not visible from space.

                    Quote: Injun Joe
                    - Who proved that this is video editing?

                    Russian Defense Ministry claims that this is a fake. Prove its authenticity. Good luck. wink

                    So, let's get the statistics of interception of drones per 100 thousand hours of their flight time.
                  10. The Indian Joe
                    The Indian Joe 10 November 2013 16: 39
                    0
                    A troll, a statement by a country that a video is fake, is not an argument proving that this video is really fake. Moreover, Georgia recognized the fact of the loss of a drone, what do you say, a liar? )))

                    Russian Defense Ministry claims that this is a fake. Prove its authenticity
                    - troll? Read the liar:


                    UN observers concluded that a Georgian unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, shot down over Georgian territory in April, was destroyed by a Russian fighter

                    "Last weekend, a Russian fighter shot down a Georgian unmanned reconnaissance aircraft," said on Monday in the Georgian air force

                    The UN recognized that the Georgian reconnaissance aircraft was shot down precisely by a Russian fighter


                    Prove its authenticity
                    - why, it has long been proved without me:

                    Representatives of the UN mission concluded that the video provided by the Georgian military was genuine, made by the UAV video camera during the flight and was not amended


                    Teach materiel! laughing
                    It turns out that the UAVs, which are "practically indestructible", in reality are shot down by the very first missile, and you are a banal idle talk.
                  11. Professor
                    Professor 10 November 2013 16: 46
                    +1
                    Blah blah blah. Give links to a UN commission that acknowledged that this drone shot down a Russian fighter, and in reality the very first missile. wink

                    And how are you going to detect an "individual" or even an ATGM from a satellite with a resolution of 30 cm? Feed you more? laughing
                  12. The Indian Joe
                    The Indian Joe 10 November 2013 16: 56
                    0
                    Have you already given links to the video recording of the statement of the Russian leadership that the video is fake?

                    Well, what was shot down with the first rocket, it can be seen from the video itself, the little liar Professor - you were caught lying, knock Smirnova, he seems to be covering the nonsense! )))

                    Are you trying to troll? It will not work, troll.

                    And how are you going to find a "separate person" from a satellite with a resolution of 30 cm
                    - Easy:


                    The American observer treacherously scanned nine sunbathing Americans.

                    http://news2.ru/story/14310/


                    As we can see, it is quite possible to see individuals from the satellite.
                    The torch from the ATGM can reach a length of more than half a meter - well, and the thermal footprint from it is even larger, and infrastrac radiation penetrates through the atmosphere even better - learn the materiel, ignoramus! laughing

                    Or do you now require a link that the photo on the link that I provided is not photoshop? And then the link to the link, what is stated in that link is true? Etc? A pathetic attempt, liar Professor.
                  13. Professor
                    Professor 10 November 2013 17: 10
                    +1
                    Quote: Injun Joe
                    Have you already given links to the video recording of the statement of the Russian leadership that the video is fake?

                    Eat on health:
                    UN: Georgian plane РјРѕРіР »Ryo bring down the Russian air force
                    International experts did not reach a final conclusion on what happened then.
                    As it turned out, representatives of the UN mission during the investigation actively used the recording, which allegedly was made by the Georgian military on-line from the side of a downed aircraft.

                    Regarding the film provided by Georgian military observers from the UN, the Russian side has already emphasized that various technical details do not allow authentication.

                    In turn, the Russian Ministry of Defense disproves approval of the UN mission in the zone of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict that the Georgian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) was shot down by the Russian Air Force on April 20. This was stated by RBC the head of the press service of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Colonel Alexander Drobyshevsky.
                    http://top.rbc.ru/politics/26/05/2008/172454.shtml

                    Quote: Injun Joe
                    The American observer treacherously scanned nine sunbathing Americans.

                    You, as always, are not in the subject. In your opinion all the pictures on Google Earth were taken from the satellite? Match, teach her beloved.

                    Quote: Injun Joe
                    As we can see, it is quite possible to see individuals from the satellite.

                    You absolutely do not own information and basic knowledge. This is a young man, aerial photography. laughing Poke your nose in ... or do you figure it out yourself?

                    We'll laugh about the torch from Ptur later, as well as about how infrared radiation through the atmosphere is even better.
                  14. The Indian Joe
                    The Indian Joe 10 November 2013 17: 42
                    0
                    UN: Georgian aircraft could be shot down by the Russian Air Force
                    - So the UN nevertheless recognized the fact of the downing? Well done, Professor, you are making progress! And who brought him down - Russia, or, say, Abkhazia, for me, believe me, is absolutely unimportant. It's important that
                    UN observers admit that Georgian drone was shot down Russian fighter


                    For those who are on an armored train (Professor, you understand who I am), I repeat the key phrase - byl shot down. In fact, the UN recognized the fact of the downing.
                    By the way, this is not the first time that Israeli junk is falling from heaven to earth - according to sources, Israeli flying scrap metal sold to Georgia by Israel was shot down on March 18 and April 20, and on other days ... I am not interested in verifying the authenticity of this information, but there is no doubt that the Hermes was shot down - therefore, your statement that "UAVs are practically invulnerable" is LIE and false, and you are a liar and a liar. Yes, and the UN has recognized this - not that you are a liar and a liar (this is known mainly by the members of the Forum), but that the drone was shot down.

                    And, yes, admire the wreckage photo: http://www.newsru.com/world/09may2008/bespilotka.html

                    http://lenta.ru/articles/2008/06/02/halt/

                    http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/13/drone/


                    Come on, tell me that no one drones shot down laughing Say that all this is "fotozhaba", come on)))
                  15. Professor
                    Professor 10 November 2013 17: 48
                    0
                    Where is the dock that someone knocked him down, and the operators didn’t just kill him in Georgian? Let’s already have your UN report and laugh together. Come on.
                    And then I'll show you a photo of the "downed" drones.

                    PS
                    Have you sorted out the cosmos or will you conduct an educational program? wink
                  16. The Indian Joe
                    The Indian Joe 10 November 2013 18: 37
                    0
                    Statements of Georgia, Abkhazia and the UN about the downing of Israeli flying scrap metal as evidence fit? That is, there is a statement by the injured party - Georgia, there is also a statement by the downing party, there is also a statement by the UN that the drone WAS BROKENThere is also a video, the authenticity of which Russia has not recognized, but that it has not been proven a fake, neither it nor the other side, and the most interesting is that there are no statements from the Georgian side like "nobody shot down our UAV, it was ditched by Georgian operators." Only the Professor plays with himself wink
                  17. Professor
                    Professor 10 November 2013 21: 38
                    0
                    Quote: Injun Joe
                    Statements of Georgia, Abkhazia and the UN about the downing of Israeli flying scrap metal as evidence fit?

                    UN statements will go, the other two sides poured a lot of slop on each other. So, a link to the UN report (9 pages) in the studio.

                    Quote: Injun Joe
                    there is also a UN statement that the drone was downed

                    In the studio, these statements.

                    Quote: Injun Joe
                    "Nobody shot down our UAV, it was ditched by Georgian operators."

                    Let’s give statistics, statistics, not inventions.

                    How's the tanning nudist in space images doing? wink
  • The Indian Joe
    The Indian Joe 7 November 2013 11: 42
    0
    What kind of maman shaman? You stated on the "practical invulnerability of the UAV." I immediately gave you a video where the Israeli newest Hermes MiG drone sold to Georgia is being destroyed, what do you have to say in your defense?
    Not, of course, a soldier who does not have "Buk", "Shell", "Tora" at hand cannot do anything with a drone. But on the other hand, all of the above complexes, and especially, as shown above, aviation, are destroyed by drones ONCE. Hence your statement above -
    Quote Professor
    UAVs are practically invulnerable
    - just wild nonsense, stemming either from ignorance of the materiel, or from cheap jingoistic patriotism, which closed your eyes to the real state of affairs. Or do you think that "Israeli drones are the most unmanned drones in the world"?
    1. Professor
      Professor 7 November 2013 11: 50
      0
      Quote: Injun Joe
      What kind of shaman-maman?

      For you, he is a military officer, commander of the Russian Airborne Forces.

      Quote: Injun Joe
      I immediately gave you a video where the Israeli latest MiG drone sold to Georgia is destroyed, what do you have to justify?

      I remember the Russian Defense Ministry stated this video as a fake. Anyway. This is what General Shamanov narrates.
      In the same Abkhazian direction, Georgian drones regularly flew over the positions of our troops, and in most cases we had to put up with this. These Israeli-made Hermes UAVs circled the paratrooper camp for hours with impunity for hours because military air defense systems “didn’t take them”: ZU-23 anti-aircraft missiles didn’t penetrate, and MANPADS did not fly due to insufficient heat radiation from drones.
      What kind of shaman-maman? Native American Joe knows best. After all, he fought there ... wink

      Quote: Injun Joe
      just a wild delirium, stemming either from ignorance of the materiel, or from cheap cheers-patriotism, which closed your eyes to the real state of things.

      Enlighten pliz about the real state of things.
      1. The Indian Joe
        The Indian Joe 7 November 2013 12: 00
        0
        I remember the Russian Defense Ministry stated this video as a fake
        - I do not remember this, but if there is, then it was only part of the information war. And, after all, Georgia declared this video as evidence of a violation of its airspace? wink
        Shamanov's statement - Shamanov's WORDS - somehow do not fit with the VIDEO of the destruction of the drone and your WORDS that "UAVs are practically invulnerable." Note - not even "theoretically", but "practically" laughing Professor, admit that you froze nonsense.
        Enlighten pliz about the real state of things
        - watch again the video I posted above, where an Israeli-made UAV is destroyed by an air-to-air missile. This is the real state of affairs - UAVs are vulnerable, easily knocked down even by not new missiles and aircraft, and represent an excellent target for the Russian Air Force. And the words of all degenerates are not the ultimate truth, but only reflect the opinion of one person. For now, I'll read your excuses in the evening)
        1. Professor
          Professor 7 November 2013 12: 10
          0
          Quote: Injun Joe
          Shamanov's statement - Shamanov's WORDS - somehow do not fit with the VIDEO of the destruction of the drone and your WORDS that "UAVs are practically invulnerable." Note - not even "theoretically", but "practically"

          Lying means commander of the Airborne Forces, the hero of Russia Shamans? Here from whom I did not expect so did not expect ...
          Do not breed flood and read what it means "practically not".

          Quote: Injun Joe
          This is the real state of things - UAVs are vulnerable, easily go astray even with new missiles and planes, and are an excellent target for the Russian Air Force. And the words of all degenerals are not the ultimate truth, but merely reflect the opinion of one person. On the sim for now, in the evening I will read your excuses)

          Stop trolling. They do not go astray easily and until the end of the war the Russian Air Force managed to cope with a dozen Georgian drones. But the fighting general, the mountain of Russia, I would not call a degeneral.
          You have a problem with the materiel, that is, a complete lack of knowledge and with its application too. Learn.
        2. The Indian Joe
          The Indian Joe 8 November 2013 00: 31
          0
          Lies means commander of the Airborne Forces, the hero of Russia Shamans
          - why do you translate arrows? It is important that you are lying. And I caught you lying (again, by the way wink ) Shamanov could simply be wrong. And he could have lied, I somehow do not care about the words of an officer of another power, if there is a VIDEO that refutes your false statement "UAVs are practically invulnerable."

          Stop trolling.
          - is it you, the fattest troll on the site, have the audacity to blame others for trolling when you were poked in the face with your muzzle ??? How much do you think of yourself?

          They don’t get off easily
          - after watching the video about the shooting of an Israeli target over Georgia, I have a slightly different opinion - the UAV was shot down easily, with the first missile, it had no reset of dipole reflectors, no sharpness of heat traps, no anti-missile maneuver, or attempts to evade or defend - that is, the device was shot down exactly EASY. Find the courage to look into the eyes of reality.

          But the fighting general, the mountain of Russia, I would not call a degeneral
          - enough that you, in fact, called the UAVs "practically indestructible."

          They don’t easily go astray and until the end of the war the Russian Air Force managed to cope with a dozen Georgian drones
          - "Was there a boy?" Tell us about "dozens of drones" that "the Russian Air Force could not cope with", in more detail - how many attacks on drones did these fighters carry out? What is the consumption of missiles, where and when were there attempts to attack, with what aircraft? Where is the video of the attack recorded by the Georgian donors? Photo of the wreckage of missiles fired at Georgian drones? Or will you quote Shalamov again? lol

          you with the materiel of the problem, that is, a complete lack of knowledge and with its application too
          - grandfather (fortunately, not mine), I would never call a UAV or other aircraft "practically indestructible". This could only be done by a frame completely divorced from reality. Or who has problems with materiel - you, for example.
          The video, where the Israeli "Hermes" over Georgia is shot down by the first missile from the old MiG, how is it connected with your statement about the unbreakability of the UAV?
        3. Professor
          Professor 8 November 2013 08: 24
          0
          Blah blah blah. Aphids of stupid I repeat: even a dozen Georgian UAVs were so “easily shot down” that they flew with impunity until the end of the war. These are facts, not your cheap flood.

          Quote: Injun Joe
          Or who has problems with the materiel - you, for example.

          Well, enlighten the layman, give statistics on the interception of drones for 100 thousand hours of flight. wink

          Quote: Injun Joe
          Or again quote Shalamov?

          Surname of the military general Shamans, learn this once and for all. It was he who fought when you devoured the buns.
        4. The Indian Joe
          The Indian Joe 8 November 2013 20: 27
          0
          Well, enlighten the layman, give statistics on the interception of drones per 100 thousand hours of flight
          - especially for the layman, watch the video of the UAV interception again:


          The number of hours of UAV flying is not important - since you declared UAV INTEGRABILITY, and I uploaded a video proving that you are again LIE.
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 7 November 2013 11: 07
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    The experience of military operations shows that UAVs are practically invulnerable.

    If you do not prepare for their appearance. And do not make sure that the funds capable of shooting down the drone remained in the PDP.
    Is not it? It seems that this "invulnerability" has already been discussed. Have you gone in a new circle?
  • svp67
    svp67 3 November 2013 08: 59
    +7
    Quote: Vitold
    The drone will detect and correct, and "Spike" (Tamuz) will destroy.

    By this time, when the tank unit approaches the front edge by 6 km, your UAV will "lie" on the ground in the form of a pile of smoking debris, artillery and MLRS will work at the Spike (Tamuz) positions, so that life does not seem like honey , and the entire area will be reliably covered with electronic warfare and air defense systems ...
    A "real" war is not a fight against "wild" groups of armed people, it is a pre-planned and performed measures and actions to suppress and destroy, including countering all means of armed struggle of the enemy ... which is at least equal to you, but then it is superior.
  • The Indian Joe
    The Indian Joe 7 November 2013 10: 44
    0
    Shooting by the rocket itself transferred to the CP
    - a rocket, as I understand it, with remote control. The question for you is what will happen if a powerful, reliably hidden interference generator with several spaced antennas works in the target zone? The signal level of the generator in the approach zone of the rocket will in any case be higher than the signal level of the transmitter.
    1. Professor
      Professor 7 November 2013 10: 59
      0
      Quote: Injun Joe
      a rocket, as I understand it, with telecontrol. The question for you is what will happen if a powerful, reliably hidden interference generator with several spaced antennas works in the target zone? The signal level of the generator in the approach zone of the rocket will in any case be higher than the signal level of the transmitter.

      Materiel to teach you ...
      This missile fired, forgot with the possibility of correction and change of target in flight. And the most interesting thing is that communication with the rocket occurs via fiber optic cable !!!
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 7 November 2013 11: 15
        0
        The first launch will be spotted by the Aistenok, and the artillery will work perfectly in the installation.
      2. The Indian Joe
        The Indian Joe 8 November 2013 00: 47
        0
        I beg your pardon, the type of rocket is not indicated in the video - it is controlled by cable or by radio, so reproaches of ignorance of the materiel are not deserved by me. But in any case, not a single person can know everything, therefore, and this person (in this case, you) has no right to reproach others, especially after you have voiced your next pearl "UAVs are practically indestructible" wassat
        1. Professor
          Professor 8 November 2013 08: 38
          0
          Quote: Injun Joe
          I’m sorry, the type of rocket is not indicated in the video - it is controlled by cable or radio channel, so I’m not deserved accusations of ignorance.

          For the dumb, the title of the video is white on black: "Spike "Tamuz" accurate hit from 20 km -Israel. "And in the comments in which the video is posted, respected Vitold writes:" The drone will detect and correct, and Spike (Tamuz) destroys."

          Go young man to study. So your extreme pearls:
          1. Grad shell intercept S-400
          2. A rocket controlled by an optical fiber cable is removed by two antennas
          3. Launch ATGM detect from space

          I see how you flashed your knowledge, I look forward to continuing. good
          1. The comment was deleted.
  • here and there
    here and there 2 November 2013 09: 57
    -5
    the term vacuum bomb is not correct, it generates a black hole lol
    1. Patton5
      Patton5 4 November 2013 10: 17
      +1
      How is vacuum connected with a black hole ??? did not try to think before writing laughing
      1. Deniska
        Deniska 5 November 2013 12: 01
        0
        And look who is on his profile picture;)
        1. here and there
          here and there 7 November 2013 00: 22
          0
          here's a little educational program for you lol
      2. here and there
        here and there 7 November 2013 00: 20
        +1
        Vacuum Myths

        Thanks to some poorly educated headquarters journalists, the myth-making around ODAB smoothly migrated to the pages of newspapers and magazines, and the bomb itself was called "vacuum." Say, during the explosion in the cloud all oxygen is burned and a deep vacuum is formed, almost like in space, and this same vacuum begins to spread outward. That is, instead of the front of high pressure, as in a conventional explosion, there is a front of low pressure. The term "reverse blast wave" was even coined. What the press is there! In the early 1980s, at the military department of my physical faculty, almost under a non-disclosure subscription, a colonel from the General Staff spoke about new types of weapons used by the United States in Lebanon. Not without a “vacuum” bomb, which supposedly when it gets into the building turns it into dust (gas penetrates into the smallest gaps), and low vacuum neatly puts this dust in the epicenter. ABOUT! Wasn't this clear head about to demolish the Khrushchevs in the same way ?!

        If these people even taught chemistry at school a little, they would have guessed that oxygen does not disappear anywhere - it simply goes into the reaction process, for example, into carbon dioxide with the same volume. And if it simply disappeared in a fantastic way (and it is only about 20% in the atmosphere), then the lack of volume would be compensated by other gases expanding when heated. And even if all the gas had disappeared from the explosion zone and a vacuum had formed, then a pressure drop into one atmosphere could hardly have destroyed even a cardboard tank - any military man would just laugh.

        And from a school course in physics, one could learn that any shock wave (compression zone) is necessarily followed by a rarefaction zone - according to the law of conservation of masses. Just the explosion of a blasting explosive (BB) can be considered point, and the volume-detonating charge, due to the large volume, forms a longer shock wave. That is why he does not dig a funnel, but he fells trees. But almost no brisant (crushing) action.
        1. Patton5
          Patton5 7 November 2013 11: 27
          0
          So all the same, how is the vacuum connected with the "black hole"? ... the question remains open
          1. Professor
            Professor 7 November 2013 11: 31
            0
            Quote: Patton5
            So all the same, how is the vacuum connected with the "black hole"? ... the question remains open

            How is connected? Density. Quite the opposite, in vacuum there is nothing, and in black there is everything and a lot and in a very compressed form ... wink
            1. here and there
              here and there 7 November 2013 15: 16
              +1
              I agree, not quite correct figurative expression
  • vomag
    vomag 2 November 2013 10: 02
    +4
    looked vidyuhu mdaaa! impressive I think for a breakthrough of defense in individual areas and the taking of bridgeheads, a thing simply necessary means not so much tank as motorized rifle
  • Dimy4
    Dimy4 2 November 2013 10: 39
    +6
    and some unknown wit for some reason called him "Pinocchio."

    We love with our deadly technique to give similar names. Vrazhina not immediately and guess what.
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 6 November 2013 14: 42
      0
      If they had called "Pinocchio", the adversary would not have guessed either.
  • gladiatorakz
    gladiatorakz 2 November 2013 10: 53
    +1
    Nice car. To increase the range to 15 km and accuracy. Then hit and run tactics will become a thing of the past.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 2 November 2013 11: 31
      14
      Meaning? To duplicate "Grads"? And in a very narrow niche: "Buratino" - "Solntsepёk" only two types of missiles.

      These machines, on the contrary, should "select" the dead zone of the MLRS, which happened at short ranges.
      They need to expand the range of ammunition, install ASUO on them, include it in the artillery fire system, rivet for them an adequate KShMku so that they can shoot with closed accuracy with sufficient accuracy.
      1. gladiatorakz
        gladiatorakz 2 November 2013 12: 38
        +2
        Quote: Spade
        Meaning? To duplicate "Grads"? And in a very narrow niche: "Buratino" - "Solntsepёk" only two types of missiles.

        These machines, on the contrary, should "select" the dead zone of the MLRS, which happened at short ranges.
        They need to expand the range of ammunition, install ASUO on them, include it in the artillery fire system, rivet for them an adequate KShMku so that they can shoot with closed accuracy with sufficient accuracy.

        They will duplicate the hail if they develop a similar munition for the Grad. There should not be a dead zone. The rest of your comment only duplicates mine.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 2 November 2013 12: 55
          +3
          "Grad" has an incendiary, thermobaric - I see no point
      2. knn54
        knn54 2 November 2013 18: 35
        +3
        The only suitable niche for TOC are small special operations where rapid deployment and instant destruction of manpower and weakly protected equipment over a relatively large area is required (especially in the mountains due to the mutual overlap of air shock waves and their multiple reflection from surrounding rocks). dangers of falling back fire.
        True, on the basis of the NURS, you can create a special projectile carrying a mixture to extinguish fires or neutralize aerosol agents ...
  • afg444
    afg444 2 November 2013 11: 36
    +9
    After some modifications, the complex went into service with the USSR-TOC-1 complex, and for some reason some unknown wits called it “Buratino”.
    ===================================
    The author, to put it mildly, is not accurate. The name arose at the development stage of NURS (equipped with a napalm-type fire mixture) in the early 70s ... The "Spout" did not work out constructively ... The name remained ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 2 November 2013 11: 48
      +2
      Quote: afg444
      The author, to put it mildly, is not accurate. The name arose at the development stage of NURS (equipped with a napalm-type fire mixture) in the early 70s ... The "Spout" did not work out constructively ... The name remained ...

      Fuse Probe? Then it really looks like.
      1. afg444
        afg444 2 November 2013 12: 02
        +2
        Yes, the effectiveness of the defeat of the OS - 1,0-1,5 m above the surface of the earth ... They left the standard, MRV-U
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 2 November 2013 13: 32
          0
          Quote: afg444
          Left full-time, MRV-U

          Unification. On the other hand, new electronic ones appeared for the MLRS, and it will not be difficult to screw them.
  • gameover_65
    gameover_65 2 November 2013 11: 40
    +5
    Fuel bomb smile I never cease to be amazed how miserable my tongue is. Well, such a language cannot affect the brains of its speakers!
    1. castle
      castle 2 November 2013 12: 06
      0
      Here's a short list of fools, victims of the English language: Conan Doyle, Lewis Carroll, Kingsley Amis, Jerome K. Jerome, Winston Churchill, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Beatles, Pink Floyd, M. Twain, E. Hemingway, K. Vonnegut, L Bernstein, G. Gershwin, Ch. Chaplin, W. Disney, W. Allen, S. Spielberg. Continue?
      1. gameover_65
        gameover_65 2 November 2013 12: 23
        +7
        Of course go on. of those of you listed, they were called great by English-speaking or pro-Western-minded among us. There are about 1 billion people who speak this misunderstanding, and there are already more than seven of us here. even sherlock holmes we did better than at home. smile
        1. castle
          castle 2 November 2013 19: 00
          -2
          I, somewhere, wrote that they are great? If someone does not agree with the propaganda chatter of people like you, then pro-Western? We have a saying: "How many languages ​​you can, how many times you are human."
          Have you actually read Mark Twain or O'Henry, or, at worst, Douglas Adams? Or, as usual, "did not read, but disagree with them"?
          1. stalkerwalker
            stalkerwalker 3 November 2013 21: 55
            +7
            Quote: hrad
            Have you actually read Mark Twain or O'Henry, or, at worst, Douglas Adams? Or, as usual, "did not read, but disagree with them"?

            Yeah ...
            Only you are one smart, you know how to read ... laughing
  • crambol
    crambol 2 November 2013 12: 07
    +7
    ... but also the pressure differences in the explosion area due to burnout air.

    Lord, well, the air is not burning! A combustible mixture burns, binding to oxygen, and its content in the air is 21%! The impression is that all the losers after school began to write articles together.
    1. vova1973
      vova1973 2 November 2013 16: 07
      +2
      That's right in the absence of oxygen from asphyxiation, you lose combat effectiveness. Although after the explosion at what speed does it recover at the blast site? Volumetric explosive ordnance effectiveness depends on weather conditions.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 2 November 2013 16: 28
        +8
        There will be no suffocation. The lungs will vomit earlier. They were called "vacuum" not because of the "burnout" of something. The high-speed shock front causes a discharge after passing.
        1. vova1973
          vova1973 2 November 2013 16: 55
          -3
          if you hit the scene of an explosion there, in theory, nothing should break after the explosion.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 2 November 2013 17: 09
            +4
            I quote:
            In particular, it was found that the shock wave created during the explosion of ammunition for a volume explosion causes such lesions as air embolism of blood vessels (blockage by air bubbles), brain contusion, internal bleeding due to rupture of parenchymal organs (liver, spleen), pneumothorax (air penetration into the pleural cavity and, as a result, shutting off the lung from the act of breathing), lung atelectasis (shutting off certain sections of the lung tissue from the function of breathing due to loss of elasticity), leaving the orbits of the eyeballs, rupture of the tympanic membranes, etc.

            (c) Colonel Dmitriev ZVO No. 9/83
            http://otvaga2004.ru/kaleydoskop/kaleydoskop-ammo/boepripasy-obyomnogo-vzryva/
            1. Abracadabra
              Abracadabra 2 November 2013 23: 17
              -1
              The effect is equivalent to how if a diver abruptly, in a second, to the top, to tear from a depth of 400m?
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 2 November 2013 23: 22
                +2
                Do not confuse barotrauma caused by excessive pressure, and decompression sickness caused by a decrease in pressure, and boiling of nitrogen in the blood.
    2. crambol
      crambol 3 November 2013 22: 31
      0
      What a delight, someone rolled a minus! Know disagree with the canons of chemistry!
  • Captain45
    Captain45 2 November 2013 12: 21
    +3
    So there was already a similar article, even more complete and more than once, here is the link: http://topwar.ru/19240-buratino-i-solncepek-vopros-kolichestva.html. It seems that the paragraphs rearrange paragraphs in places, which something removed. change the photo and post it like new. what I do not understand request
  • zinander
    zinander 2 November 2013 12: 22
    +4
    Syria needs such systems and more.
    1. AVV
      AVV 2 November 2013 13: 05
      +3
      Yes, there they would be very useful, it would be easier to clean the neighborhoods, from the Saudis, and other gangs of formations !!!
  • nnz226
    nnz226 2 November 2013 14: 12
    +2
    Only the number of installations is not impressive. To spread 20 pieces on the territory of Russia, you will not notice their impact. A transfer quickly to the place of conflict because of the distances .... ????? Here it is necessary in each of the 4-x districts to have 20-30 pieces so that they have time to contribute to the defeat of the adversary.
  • Klava
    Klava 2 November 2013 14: 18
    +2
    Such contraption must be delivered to the Syrian army. Bumblebees are so necessary.
  • Professor
    Professor 2 November 2013 15: 12
    +1
    The system is interesting and, in my opinion, even somewhere promising, but it's somehow scary to realize that almost any penetration of an ammunition by a bullet, fragment, etc. will lead to lethal consequences. IMHO the mixture should be stored separately and "brought into combat condition" already in flight.
    1. crambol
      crambol 2 November 2013 15: 36
      0
      ... the mixture must be stored separately and "put into action" already in flight.

      And the idea is interesting! What will the specialists say? Or have they already rushed to try?
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 2 November 2013 15: 54
        +2
        Nearly. The incendiary mixture is mixed in flight.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 2 November 2013 15: 51
      +2
      This applies only to rockets with incendiary warheads; thermobaric should be completely safe.
      Here the question is different, one rocket costs 350-370 tr, which is quite expensive.
      1. Professor
        Professor 2 November 2013 15: 57
        0
        Quote: Spade
        This applies only to rockets with incendiary warheads; thermobaric should be completely safe.

        How can it be safe if the mixture is in a liquid state of aggregation? And not for nothing that the ammunition was booked?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 2 November 2013 16: 13
          +2
          Liquid in incendiary, propyl nitrate with aluminum powder, in thermobaric it should in principle be solid.
    3. Argon
      Argon 2 November 2013 16: 11
      +2
      And in principle, this is how the binary charge occurs and the fire mixture becomes after partial mixing (the result of the detonation of the fuse) in the process of "combustion." surface "combustion. But even in the event of a fire (which may well be in the tactical zone), the car is sealed, the temperature jump will smooth out the lining, after five minutes they will come out through the lower hatch, I think that the maximum loss of the car. I think these systems have very great prospects in the investigation high "carrying capacity" of the ammunition (because of the short range, there is no need to spend weight on a powerful engine, and the effectiveness of the fire mixture eliminates the need to think about the parasitic elements, as a result the transport efficiency of the rocket is quite high).
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 2 November 2013 16: 30
        0
        Quote: Argon
        binary charge and becomes a mixture after partial mixing

        ? It is a fire mixture from the very beginning, since one of the components is highly flammable.
    4. bootlegger
      bootlegger 2 November 2013 17: 40
      +3
      It will not lead to anything special.
      For a full-fledged volumetric explosion, it is necessary to organize the correct atomization and timely detonation of the mixture. The bullet will make a hole and start a fire, approximately as if from a broken tank.
      Even a high-explosive shell hit will be less effective than a conventional TNT-filled munition. The mixture is not capable of detonating before spraying in air, and is only capable of burning languidly.
      The usual fire extinguishing system will cope.
      These systems are armored because they work in the immediate vicinity of the battlefield. Where the probability of return fire is very high.
      1. Professor
        Professor 2 November 2013 17: 51
        -1
        Then it is not clear why these systems are not widely used.
        1. bootlegger
          bootlegger 2 November 2013 18: 03
          +3
          Yes, this is a weapon for near range.
          For the far radius there is a 9K58 Smerch MLRS and 9M55S to it - a missile with a thermobaric warhead 9M216 Wave.
          An explosion of one shell creates a thermal field with a diameter of at least 25 m (depending on the terrain). Field temperature - over 1000 ° C, lifetime - at least 1,4 s. Designed to engage manpower, open and sheltered in open type fortifications and objects of unarmored and lightly armored military equipment. It is most effective in the steppe and desert, a city located on a non-hilly area. Ammunition tests were completed in 2004.
        2. Metlik
          Metlik 2 November 2013 23: 24
          -1
          Quote: Professor
          Then it is not clear why these systems are not widely used.

          "Inhumane weapons" such as cluster bombs or explosive bullets. Better to ban it.
          1. Professor
            Professor 3 November 2013 12: 29
            -1
            Quote: Metlik
            "Inhumane weapons" such as cluster bombs or explosive bullets. Better to ban it.

            However, cluster munitions of the sea still, er these drops in the sea.
        3. yanus
          yanus 4 November 2013 00: 34
          +1
          Quote: Professor
          Then it is not clear why these systems are not widely used.

          Restrictions on wind speed, air humidity, etc. In short, it is not always possible to "bang".
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 4 November 2013 00: 57
            0
            "Buratino" has no such restrictions. At least when using basic thermobaric ammunition. With incendiary, yes.
  • largus886
    largus886 2 November 2013 15: 36
    +3
    When the Czechs learned about Pinocchio’s arrival at Komsomolsky, they tried to give a very large amount of money, if only the TCO did not work out on them!
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 2 November 2013 15: 57
      +2
      It was stressful enough for them to try to give something while sitting in the basements. And there were so many weapons there that the addition of TOC did little. There rather "bumblebees" showed themselves perfectly.
      1. Abracadabra
        Abracadabra 3 November 2013 01: 04
        -1
        Vacuum bombs were used there, and judging by the explosions and the shouts of the soldiers, they were rather greasy.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 3 November 2013 01: 09
          +1
          I don’t know, I didn’t notice. Maybe while sleeping?
          1. Abracadabra
            Abracadabra 3 November 2013 22: 42
            -1
            There is a video of poor quality, filmed by the fighters themselves, over an hour long. There, at the end, the general handed out medals to conscripts. Here in this video, 2 powerful explosions are visible, similar to those shown in the news like, on the topic of vacuum bombs. Then I also found a bunch of witness testimony material. Maybe it never happened vacuum bombs, but if you ask the search engines "assault on the Komsomol vacuum bombs", then it will be full of things. When I find this video again, I will throw it off, tell me then why such powerful explosions.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 4 November 2013 01: 01
              +1
              I was just there. We arrived in the morning after the breakthrough, left when the corpses were removed, and the VVshnie sappers stopped having fun blowing up the cellars. There were a lot of things there, up to 240 mm mortars. So "Buratino" did not play a particularly significant role. The assault was "made" by infantry and tanks.
  • vova1973
    vova1973 2 November 2013 16: 51
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    There will be no suffocation. The lungs will vomit earlier. They were called "vacuum" not because of the "burnout" of something. The high-speed shock front causes a discharge after passing.

    In my opinion, if I got into the affected area there is nothing to snatch after the explosion.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 2 November 2013 17: 11
      +2
      And what if he was in an unsealed shelter? The shock wave itself will not particularly hurt, but discharge after passing through it can become a more unpleasant thing.
  • Lindon
    Lindon 2 November 2013 17: 33
    +4
    Kazakhstan 3 has such Pinocchio.
    Few people know, but Soviet soldiers fought on the fronts of World War II with flamethrowers made in Kazakhstan - the city of Kustanai.

    "On October 27, 1941, a government telegram from the People's Commissar for Machine Tool Building of the USSR A. Efremov came to the Kustanai Regional Committee of the Communist Party. It said that, we quote," the Komsomolets machine-tool plant being evacuated from the city of Yegoryevsk is located in Kustanai. Sergey Pyankov was appointed as the special commissioner for the location of the plant. The People's Commissar of Machine Tool Building asked for assistance "in placing the arrived equipment of the plant and the placement of workers, engineering and technical workers and employees of the plant with their families, as well as putting the plant into operation for the production of machine tools and special products by 20 / XII-41". As it turned out later, the special items were those very flamethrowers.

    In peacetime, the Yegoryevsky plant produced machines in cooperation with a similar Lyubertsy plant. But with the Nazis approaching Moscow, both plants were merged into one under No. 222 and transferred to the People’s Commissariat of the tank industry. The plant is large, 272 wagons were involved for its transportation to Kazakhstan. 14 November 1941 year trains began to arrive in the Kustanai region. Together with the equipment, more than 3000 factory workers and their families arrived.

    Given the urgency of launching an enterprise so important for the country, they were not taken deep into the region, but decided to place it on the territory of the Kustanai grain farm in the Karabalyk district, 12 kilometers from Toguzak station. More than 13 thousand square meters of space were allocated for production buildings and housing. Until they began to build new workshops, they occupied the building of a local school, a club and mechanized workshops of a grain farm, as well as state farm administrative buildings for production.

    But all at once went completely different from what the People’s Commissar planned. Winter, frosts, few people, lacked power. Therefore, as the Kustanai regional and regional executive committees stated in January 1942, the management of plant No. 222 (director Fokin, chief engineer Serpkov, secretary of the party committee Shkarban) were not able to organize everything quickly. By the beginning of 1942, the plant was only half restored, and from 300 products, only 16 was delivered to the conveyor, and only 4 was actually produced. In conditions of military order and wartime, this situation was fraught for many.

    But gradually the work of the ATO-type flamethrower plant was getting better, and in March of 1942, 300 of Kustanai flamethrowers were sent to the front. In August 1942, the factory began to produce modernized ATO-41 flamethrowers, then ATO-42, and in March 1943, the latest TPO-1 flamethrowers of the time were developed and put into operation, several thousand of them made. Such military products were produced only in the Kustanai region and only at the factory number 222.

    Together with the plant, housing was built on the lands of the grain farm. An entire village was formed that did not have a status. At the request of the place, the Supreme Council of the Kazakh SSR approved the name of the working village - Komsomolets. Now this is the district center Karabalyk. In wartime, there were not enough workers at the plant, and the plan for the production of military products had to be implemented. Therefore, in the spring of 1942, they began to teach the turning business of 16-17-year-olds - the order for Kustanai and the districts was for 230 students. Moreover, not voluntarily, but on appeal to the schools of the Federal Law. These Kustanai boys and girls made powerful flamethrowers for the army until the end of the war.

    And when the war began to come to an end and the need for flamethrowers disappeared, in February 1945, plant No. 222 was redesigned into a plant for the manufacture of spare parts for agricultural machinery, and it received a new name - the 25th anniversary of the Kazakh SSR. Now it is the Toguzak mechanical plant of the production association for the production of parts for tractors and agricultural machines "Kaztraktorodetal".
    1. Marek Rozny
      Marek Rozny 2 November 2013 19: 07
      +1
      Quote: Lindon
      Kazakhstan 3 has such Pinocchio.

      We have not Pinocchio, but Solntsepeki. They can easily be distinguished by the number of guides. Solntsepek has 24, Pinocchio has 30.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 2 November 2013 17: 37
    0
    Quote: Spade
    I honestly don’t know why there are no thermobaric shells. After all, this is simply two explosives with different detonation speeds and with metal powder. Maybe some restrictions on the maximum acceleration?
    Why do barrels need thermobaric ammunition? Only gophers scare. And it’s not at all easy to do this, it’s time. Two - the barrel artillery has ammunition with radio and remote fuses, the ability to fire ricochets, HE ammunition with varying degrees of deceleration of the fuse.
    The simplest reason why it is impractical to make TBB shells lies in the physical properties of an artillery shot.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 2 November 2013 18: 01
      0
      And you do not confuse thermobaric ammunition and ammunition volumetric explosion? These are completely different things, both in terms of the device and the physics of the explosion process.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Why do barrels need thermobaric ammunition?

      The increase in power, the high temperature of the shock front, what is bad?
  • vova1973
    vova1973 2 November 2013 18: 39
    0
    [quote = Shovels] Quote:
    [quote] In particular, it was found that the shock wave created during the explosion of ammunition for a volume explosion causes such lesions as air embolism of blood vessels (blockage by air bubbles), brain contusion, internal bleeding due to rupture of parenchymal organs (liver, spleen), pneumothorax (air penetration into the pleural cavity and, as a result, shutting down of the lung from the act of breathing), lung atelectasis (shutting out of the lung tissue from the function of breathing due to loss of elasticity), exit from the orbits of the eyeballs, rupture of the tympanic membranes, etc. [/ quote]
    (c) Colonel Dmitriev ZVO No. 9/83
    http://otvaga2004.ru/kaleydoskop/kaleydoskop-ammo/boepripasy-obyomnogo-vzryva/[/
    qu
    What is the radius of the epicenter of the explosion?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 2 November 2013 18: 53
      0
      This article is not voiced.
    2. basmach
      basmach 3 November 2013 00: 36
      +1
      The ODAB does not have an epicenter as such. The essence of the action (on the example of ODAB-250) is that a sensor is triggered at a certain height and an explosive charge is blown up, resulting in atomization (finely dispersed) of a liquid substance, which leads to the formation of a cloud of a certain size and shape. The main detonator triggered by a delay from a bursting charge. As a result of combustion, a region of reduced pressure is formed and collapse occurs (because the atmospheric pressure is higher), so the area of ​​damage is the size of the cloud (and, accordingly, everything inside it). By the way, in civilian life there is a classic example of an OD explosion — explosions at mill enterprises — a cloud of flour dust — a spark and hello to parents.
  • Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 2 November 2013 18: 40
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    Then it is not clear why these systems are not widely used.

    Because this weapon is prohibited by the Geneva Convention. Our country has not signed this convention, but the application does not advertise. And in Chechnya it was used not only near Komsomolsky. Against an entrenched enemy - a thing!
  • vova1973
    vova1973 2 November 2013 18: 58
    0
    Quote: Spade
    This article is not voiced.

    Then what is the main striking effect?
    For example, in a nuclear explosion, you can go blind, but the main defeat is the shock wave.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 2 November 2013 22: 14
    0
    Quote: Spade
    And you do not confuse thermobaric ammunition and ammunition volumetric explosion? These are completely different things, both in terms of the device and the physics of the explosion process.
    How can I tell you? What is the difference between head-on and head-on? This is the difference between TBB and BOV ...

    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Ckyf
    Why do barrels need thermobaric ammunition?

    The increase in power, the high temperature of the shock front, what is bad?
    First, you compare the charge in a 152mm projectile and the charge in a 1000 lb bomb. Then compare the detonation velocity and the explosiveness of explosives A-IX and propylene oxide. It turns out that the 152mm TBB projectile in power will be several times (if not an order of magnitude high) low-power than usual.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 3 November 2013 00: 20
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      How can I tell you? What is the difference between head-on and head-on? This is the difference between TBB and BOV ...

      In fact, the difference is huge. Fuel-air and volume-detonating at first create a cloud with the help of an expelling charge, and then they detonate.
      And thermobaric detonate immediately. They consist of explosives with different detonation speeds, in addition, metal powder and additional combustible substances are added to the filling to increase the temperature of the shock front

      So the latter are exactly between conventional and volume-detonating, taking independence from the former on conditions of use and greater reliability, and from the latter - greater power.

      Quote: Ckyf
      It turns out that the 152mm TBB projectile in power will be several times (if not an order of magnitude high) low-power than usual.

      On the contrary. Therefore, not only phlegmatized or metallized hexogen is used in various ATGM warheads, but a thermobaric charge, in which it, A-IX, is about a third
  • vova1973
    vova1973 3 November 2013 03: 37
    0
    Quote: basmach
    The ODAB does not have an epicenter as such. The essence of the action (on the example of ODAB-250) is that a sensor is triggered at a certain height and an explosive charge is blown up, resulting in atomization (finely dispersed) of a liquid substance, which leads to the formation of a cloud of a certain size and shape. The main detonator triggered by a delay from a bursting charge. As a result of combustion, a region of reduced pressure is formed and collapse occurs (because the atmospheric pressure is higher), so the area of ​​damage is the size of the cloud (and, accordingly, everything inside it). By the way, in civilian life there is a classic example of an OD explosion — explosions at mill enterprises — a cloud of flour dust — a spark and hello to parents.

    My question is the vacuum effect inside the spray zone or outside this zone (in what radius) after the explosion.
  • Technologist
    Technologist 3 November 2013 05: 58
    0
    ... 10-20 pieces in Russia ...

    It will be not enough (
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 3 November 2013 07: 58
    -1
    [quote = Shovels]
    In fact, the difference is huge. Fuel-air and volume-detonating at first create a cloud using a knockout charge, and then they detonate. [/ Quote] There is no difference in the response pattern. Simply
    A thermobaric detonate immediately. They consist of explosives with different detonation speeds, in addition, metal powder and additional combustible substances are added to the filling to increase the temperature of the shock wave front [/ quote] There is no difference in the response pattern. It’s just that the first is called aviation ammunition, the second is ammunition from ground-based launchers in which the explosive charge is not completely immersed in the explosive. It turns out a significant loss in the strength of the shock wave, but a gain in increasing the temperature of the explosion. This led to the fact that this effect was used in ammunition of ground launchers in order to be able to be used in the immediate vicinity of their troops. Metal powders are used only as an increase in the brightness of an explosion flash to blind an adversary.

    [quote = Lopatov] So the latter are exactly between conventional and volume-detonating, taking independence from the former and greater reliability, and from the latter, greater power. [/ Quote] Mud squared.

    [quote = Shovels]
    On the contrary. Therefore, they use not only phlegmatized or metallized hexogen in various ATGM warheads, but a thermobaric charge, in which he, A-IX, makes up about a third [/ quote]
    Clear.
    This is for general education http://army.armor.kiev.ua/hist/obomvzryv.shtml
    In principle, it is intelligible ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 3 November 2013 11: 42
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      There is no difference in the response pattern. Just the first is called aviation ammunition, the second is the ammunition of ground launchers,

      Ага.

      American air bomb BLU-96 Filling - propylene oxide. Scheme of action: detonation of a knockout -> creation of an aerosol cloud -> detonation of a cloud by initiators.

      American aerial bomb GBU-43 The main charge is hexogen and trinitrotoluene, filling is a mixture of ammonium nitrate with aluminum powder (colloquially called ammonal). Scheme of action: detonation of the main charge, creation of an initial shock wave (anaerobic stage) -> detonation of filling scattering from the primary shock wave -> expansion and combustion of explosion products (aerobic stage).

      What are the advantages of such a scheme? There is no need to form a primary aerosol cloud, ammunition can be used in adverse weather conditions, including in strong winds. There is no need for high-precision initiators, which reduces the cost and increases reliability: the process starts only one detonator, unlike the BLU-96, where the first detonator triggers a knock-out, and a few more exactly after 125 milliseconds detonation of the aerosol cloud.

      So how do these two bombs differ from each other? Precisely, the first relates to aviation weapons, unlike the second, which relates to aviation weapons


      Quote: Ckyf
      Clear.
      This is for general education http://army.armor.kiev.ua/hist/obomvzryv.shtml
      In principle, it is intelligible ...

      I read it. Not only do you not know the materiel, but also Comrade. Veremeev, in whom explosives burn, not detonate.

      It's just that he, like you, is not aware that in fact there are three different types of warheads. Fuel-airwhere is going explosive burning pre-created aerosol cloud, volumetric detonatingwhere the aerosol cloud detonatesand thermobaricWhere aerosol cloud is not pre-created.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 3 November 2013 13: 30
    -1
    Quote: Spade

    American air bomb BLU-96 Filling - propylene oxide. Scheme of action: detonation of a knockout -> creation of an aerosol cloud -> detonation of a cloud by initiators.

    American aviation bomb GBU-43 The main charge is hexogen and trinitrotoluene, filling is a mixture of ammonium nitrate with aluminum powder (colloquially called ammonal).
    The first is BOV, the second is the usual ammunition in ersatz filling, which is typical in wartime for cheaper production with a certain decrease in the quality indicators of the action of ammunition.
    What else do you bring?

    Quote: Spade
    What are the advantages of such a scheme?
    Why are you describing the mechanics of the action of conventional ammunition as standard?

    Quote: Spade
    So how do these two bombs differ from each other?
    So what?)))

    Quote: Spade

    I read it. Not only do you not know the materiel, but also Comrade. Veremeev, in whom explosives burn, not detonate.
    Connoisseur of materiel.
    In fact, the theory of detonation is included in the gas dynamics of combustion.
    Reduce aplomb.

    Quote: Spade
    It's just that he, like you, is not aware that in fact there are three different types of warheads. Fuel-airwhere is going explosive burning pre-created aerosol cloud, volumetric detonatingwhere the aerosol cloud detonatesand thermobaricWhere aerosol cloud is not pre-created.

    Before you write this, read something on the topic not from murzilka, and do not write nonsense, confusing warm with soft.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 3 November 2013 13: 57
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      The first is BOV, the second is the usual ammunition in ersatz filling, which is typical in wartime for cheaper production with a certain decrease in the quality indicators of the action of ammunition.

      Actually, this is the most modern and most powerful American guided bombs "Mother of all bombs" GBU-43 MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast). Do you think Americans need ersatz? You should at least use Google, purely for a change.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Before you write this, read something on the topic not from murzilka, and do not write nonsense, confusing warm with soft.

      Well, refute it!
      Or the second series of Aquarius: I am facts, are you hints at your vast knowledge and epithets? We have already played these games: as soon as it was already impossible to do without facts, it became clear that statements "this is nonsense" and general phrases were no longer limited, you promptly snorted into the bushes
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 3 November 2013 14: 33
        +1
        By the way, my "murzilka" is Selivanov's textbook "Means of destruction and ammunition"
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 3 November 2013 15: 14
    -3
    Quote: Spade

    Actually, this is the most modern and most powerful American guided bombs "Mother of all bombs" GBU-43 MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast). Do you think Americans need ersatz? You should at least use Google, purely for a change.
    Mr. expert on the material part!
    If you knew a little, you would know that the Americans equipped their BomboMother with ammonal, which has good high explosiveness, detonation resistance, and has a long shelf life. Americans know what a war economy is and how to use ersatz with the greatest efficiency.

    Quote: Spade

    Or the second series of aquaculture: I'm facts, are you a hint of your vast knowledge and epithets?
    You are not citing facts, but smashing nonsense. What is the first, that the second type of warhead refers to BOW, the difference is only in the fillers and the conditions of the blasting.
    By the way, for the first time a BOV fuel-air bomb was used near Moscow in 1941. our aviation. Equipment was worth a penny, although the high-explosive effect was low.

    Quote: Spade
    We have already played these games: as soon as it was already impossible to do without facts, it became clear that statements "this is nonsense" and general phrases were no longer limited, you promptly snorted into the bushes
    Mr. expert, you once taught me the Rules of Shooting and Fire Control ON, only after a couple of comments and refusal to answer my specific questions did you go somewhere ...
    Reduce aplomb.
    I presented the facts to you, specifically - in a link that you strikingly do not want to read, further - in the description of the fundamental difference between TBB and ODB, only in the way of setting the bursting charge of warheads.
    Both of these facts refute your picture of "spherical conics in a vacuum", but you stubbornly do not want to notice this.

    Quote: Spade
    By the way, my "murzilka" is Selivanov's textbook "Means of destruction and ammunition"
    If you still understood what was read ...
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 3 November 2013 15: 57
    +2
    Quote: Ckyf
    You are not citing facts, but smashing nonsense.

    Here it is. Another reinforced concrete argument.

    Quote: Ckyf
    The facts I presented to you, specifically, in a link that you strikingly do not want to read,

    But I'm sorry, there is game.
    Do you need to quote a textbook?
    Since TBSs are, in essence, condensed explosives, they have a rather high blasting and propelling effect, therefore, thermobaric BP with contact fuses are also used to destroy lightly armored targets (IFVs, armored personnel carriers, etc.), and when they fire from The hull forms a high-speed fragmentation field, which can be used as an additional damaging factor.

    And what about your link with "reinforced concrete" facts?
    Well, first of all, volumetric explosion ammunition has only one damaging factor - the shock wave. They do not have fragmentation, cumulative effect on the target and cannot possess.

    Well, what should I think about Velikiy Veremeyev and about you, who consider his popular science article "facts" after that?

    Quote: Ckyf
    What is the first, that the second type of warhead refers to BOW, the difference is only in the fillers and the conditions of the blasting.
    The fundamental difference between TBB and ODB is only in the method of setting the explosive charge of the warhead.

    Of course, this is volumetric blast ammunition. However, volumetric detonating from thermobaric ones differ not in that, I quote: "the first is called aviation ammunition, the second is ground-based PU ammunition, in which the explosive charge is not completely immersed in explosives", but by the fact that thermobaric to single-cycle, exploding in the turbulent afterburning mode. They have a different device, a different composition of the filler, a different mechanism of action and different factors of action on the target. The only thing that unites them is that they are BOV


    Quote: Ckyf
    Mr. expert on the material part!
    If you had a little understanding, you would know that the Americans equipped their BomboMother with ammonal, which has good high explosiveness, detonation resistance, and has a long shelf life.

    Exactly. What did you write? "ordinary ammunition in ersatz-filling, typical in wartime to reduce the cost of production with a certain decrease in the quality indicators of the action of the ammunition.
    Sorry, the thermobaric GBU-43 MOAB can hardly be called that.

    Quote: Ckyf
    Mr. expert, you once taught me the Rules of Shooting and Fire Control ON, only after a couple of comments and refusal to answer my specific questions did you go somewhere ...

    And you are much to lie. Did I write this?
    In general, Lopatov, I understand you. You may not answer me further, for I will not gain anything useful from a discussion with you. You can draw another star on your pursuit - in ink, like everyone else ...
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 3 November 2013 21: 41
    -2
    [quote = Shovels]
    Here it is. Another reinforced concrete argument. [/ Quote] That's right.

    [quote = Shovels]
    But I'm sorry, there is game.
    Do you need to quote a tutorial? [/ Quote]
    "" Since TBS, in essence, are condensed explosives, they have a sufficiently high blasting and propelling effect, therefore, thermobarichsky BPs with contact fuses are also used to destroy lightly armored targets (BMP, armored personnel carriers, etc.), and with them When triggered, a high-speed fragmentation field is formed from the body, which can be used as an additional damaging factor.
    And what about your link with "reinforced concrete" facts? [/ Quote] Mr. expert, if you know what BRIZZiness is, which is mentioned in my link, then it will not be difficult to draw an analogy with blasting and propelling actions in citing your textbook. How much time do you need for this?
    A shrapnel field? First, compare the reduced fragmentation coefficient of conventional ammunition and BOV. He did not write the book, so he clearly wrote about the fragmentation field - "to use as an additional damaging factor."

    [quote = Lopatov] Well, what do I think after that about Velikiy Veremeyev and about you, who consider his popular science article "facts"? [/ quote] Mr. Expert, I ask you to compare the loading density of conventional ammunition and BOV and do conclusions. If THIS is not an argument for you, then ...

    [quote = Lopatov] ... but by the fact that volume-detonating ones belong to push-pull BOW, and thermobaric ones belong to single-cycle detonating ones, exploding in the turbulent afterburning mode. They have a different device, a different composition of the filler, a different mechanism of action and different factors of action for the purpose. The only thing that unites them is that they are BOB [/ quote] Oh well ?! Finally, you got to the bottom of the truth that BWA and TBB belong to the same type of ammunition!
    Now it only remains to get to the bottom of the strange concept "exploding in the turbulent afterburning mode" and what device this "mode" does. How long do you need for this?

    [quote = Shovels]
    Exactly. What did you write? "ordinary ammunition in ersatz-filling, typical in wartime to reduce the cost of production with a certain decrease in the quality indicators of the action of the ammunition. [/ quote] Mr. Connoisseur, if you knew that it is impractical to make charges from hexogen, that it is for long-term storage and security must be phlegmatized, then they would not write such nonsense.
    The ersatz-filled filling, i.e. replacing hexogen with surrogate materials, leads to durability, low cost and storage safety with a slight (10-15%) decrease in properties compared to a charge from hexogen.

    [quote = Shovels] Sorry, but the thermobaric GBU-43 MOAB can hardly be called that [/ quote] Sorry, but sometimes you need to know the materiel. especially English abbreviations. MOAB - Massive Ordnance Air Blast - high-explosive heavy ammunition.
    I wonder how 8,4 tons of ammotole were pumped into it in a gaseous state.

    [quote = Shovels]
    And you are much to lie. Did I write this?
    [/ quote] I wrote this, I will subscribe once again to my own words. You haven’t answered any of my questions - about tactical standards of B-she, about the definition of a missile defense system, about your professional attitude to artillery, etc., you argued about utter nonsense regarding combat work and the order of firing at unobserved targets, but only cheekily inflated your cheeks, directing me to learn materiel.
    Show me at least one answer to my questions, show me where I lied.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 November 2013 00: 50
      +3
      Quote: Ckyf
      Mr. connoisseur, if you know what BRIZANITY is, which is mentioned in my link, then to draw an analogy of brisance and throwing actions in quoting your textbook will not be difficult. How much time do you need for this?

      Have you read what is written on your link? There is talk about brisance clouds of air-fuel mixture. But we, I hope, have found out that thermobaric munitions act somewhat differently than volume-detonating ones, and for the explosion they do not need to create an aerosol cloud. Moreover, in the anaerobic stage of the explosion, the components of the thermobaric munition behave absolutely the same as traditional explosives That is, they destroy the shell with the formation of fragments.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Yah?! Finally, you got to the bottom of the truth that BWA and TBB belong to the same type of ammunition!

      I apologize, did you understand what you wrote yourself? "BOV and TBB belong to the same type of ammunition!" Vegetables and carrots are one type of food! A phenomenal discovery.
      Dear, I make a clear distinction between two types of volumetric explosion ammunition: volumetric detonating and thermobaric.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Now it only remains to get to the bottom of the strange concept "exploding in the turbulent afterburning mode"

      Do you find scientific terms strange? Very arrogant. In single-stroke volumetric explosion ammunition, depending on their device, there are four modes of their operation. Turbulent afterburning is one of them. There's nothing you can do about it ... It is very difficult to argue with terms, even if you use articles of the "BOV for Dummies" style
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 November 2013 00: 50
      +2
      Quote: Ckyf
      Mr. Expert, if you knew that it is impractical to make charges from RDX, that it should be phlegmatized for long-term storage and safety, you would not write such nonsense.

      I know this very well, I even know how A-IX-I differs from A-IX-II. But what does this have to do with the fact that you called the newest American thermobaric air bomb "ordinary ammunition in ersatz-filling, typical in wartime to reduce the cost of production with a certain decrease in the quality indicators of the action of the ammunition"?
      Are you trying to "speak" this "mistake" of yours?

      Quote: Ckyf
      The ersatz-filled filling, i.e. replacing hexogen with surrogate materials, leads to durability, low cost and storage safety with a slight (10-15%) decrease in properties compared to a charge from hexogen.

      Sorry, did you even read what I wrote? Ammonal is included in the filling, the main charge of the bomb consists of a mixture of hexogen with trinitrotoluene. Nobody replaced RDX, and there was no thought.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Sorry, but sometimes you need to know the materiel. especially English abbreviations. MOAB - Massive Ordnance Air Blast - high-explosive heavy ammunition.
      I wonder how 8,4 tons of ammotole were pumped into it in a gaseous state.

      And for sure, you need to know. For example, the fact that ammonal is by no means a gas. However, like the ammotol you mentioned, which is not used in this bomb.
      And English is worth learning. Massive Ordnance Air Blast literally "heavy air blast ammunition" There is nothing about "high-explosive action", no matter what Wikipedia says about it.

      Quote: Ckyf
      show me where I lied.

      You lied by stating:
      Quote: Ckyf
      only after a couple of comments and a refusal to answer my specific questions did you disappear somewhere ...

      Dear, with the naked eye you can see that in that topic, the last posts were mine. So, in spite of your lies, it was not me, but you, that "went somewhere".
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 3 November 2013 22: 05
    -2
    In order not to be unfounded, I ask you to find YOUR answers to my questions in the specified topic. When you find Lopatov, we’ll see which of us is lying.
    List of questions asked by me:
    TOPIC: "Aybat self-propelled mortar. International cooperation and corruption scandal"

    October 27, 2013 15:13 The first - you do not want to compare the geographical maps of the area of ​​Middle Europe and Bl. East? Well, at least recall the African operations of World War II ... What is the main characteristic feature of hostilities, huh?

    October 27, 2013 13:58 The third time I ask - what is the expression in the formula for determining the weight of CO before multiplying by 0,001 Dt?
    What do you have to do with artillery?

    October 27, 2013 09:24 Now compare the consumption and the means involved in defeating the battery of self-propelled guns and one self-propelled guns.
    Are you seriously going to drag the mortars to the front line at the 66th in a half-direct fire?

    October 26, 2013 23:49 PM Binding norm based on what software?)))) For a change, calculate the weight of the total RM

    October 26, 2013 21:20 So, how do you compare the firing range of the battalion mortar and the depth of the immediate task of the offensive?

    October 26, 2013 19:22 What else does the term "OP occupation" include?
    What are your conditions for the onset of the oncoming battle.

    October 26, 2013 17:30 What sort of battle order takes something faster than something?

    October 26, 2013 17:30 For the oncoming battle on the army scale, some conditions are needed. Could you name these conditions for a Central European theater?

    October 26, 2013 16:08 Did you compare the depth of the next task of the former and the firing range of the battalion mortar?

    By the way, here is your standard answer to my questions:
    Lopatov (1) October 27, 2013 15:50
    "You are simply incapable of having a factual discussion."
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 November 2013 00: 55
      +2
      Quote: Ckyf
      By the way, here is your standard answer to my questions:
      Lopatov (1) October 27, 2013 15:50
      "You are simply incapable of having a factual discussion."

      And he was absolutely right. Because your answers did not contain a single fact. Exclusively from questions, epithets and attempts to get personal. Even when it all came down to the fact that the only thing that could be answered "yes" or "no"
  • jjj
    jjj 4 November 2013 03: 29
    0
    I won’t lie, but as if a new ammunition had already been created. And they showed one bomb three years ago. It is designed to extinguish fires instead of water. Explosion, and no fire.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 4 November 2013 08: 04
    -2
    Quote: Spade

    Are you trying to "speak" this "mistake" of yours?
    You do not understand anything or pretend to be? Specifically, it was written by me why the ersatz (surrogate) materials are used in this case. I don’t ask a question about your artillery education, it simply doesn’t exist, otherwise you wouldn’t write such a haze.

    Quote: Spade

    Sorry, did you even read what I wrote? Ammonal is included in the filling, the main charge of the bomb consists of a mixture of hexogen with trinitrotoluene. Nobody replaced RDX, and there was no thought.
    Ammonal is not included in the filling, I conditionally called BB Ammonal with AL powder. Just the RDX in this bomb is the least)))

    Quote: Spade
    And for sure, you need to know. For example, the fact that ammonal is by no means a gas. However, like the ammotol you mentioned, which is not used in this bomb.
    And English is worth learning. Massive Ordnance Air Blast literally "heavy air blast ammunition" There is nothing about "high-explosive action", no matter what Wikipedia says about it.

    ] Is this yours? / Lopatov (1) Yesterday, 13:57 ↑ ... "Mother of all bombs" GBU-43 MOAB /
    Now find that it is an air blast ammunition. "Air" means aviation, air, literally aviation (or air) heavy explosive ammunition. By the way, earlier in military schools they taught how to correctly translate English abbreviations)))
    If you are even a little versed, then watch the video and find the visual differences between the explosion of Russian PAPA and American MOM:
    American http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI_YEICyIS0
    Russian http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WwOVo4zENc

    Quote: Spade

    Dear, with the naked eye you can see that in that topic, the last posts were mine. So, in spite of your lies, it was not me, but you, that "went somewhere".
    In your last post, there was nothing besides idle talk and gurgling. What was next to continue the conversation with you? Prove that you are a layman? This was already clear.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 November 2013 12: 55
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      You do not understand anything or pretend to be? Specifically, it was written by me why the ersatz (surrogate) materials are used in this case.

      What kind? RDX? Trinitrotoluene? What do you see as "surrogate" in them? RDX - "ersatz"? Phenomenal !!!!

      Quote: Ckyf
      Ammonal is not included in the filling, I conditionally called BB Ammonal with AL powder.

      Ammonal is included in the thermobaric mixture - that is, it is included in the filling. And it was amonal, not the mythical "conditional BB"


      Quote: Ckyf
      Now find that it is an air blast ammunition. "Air" means aviation, air, literally aviation (or air) heavy explosive ammunition. By the way, earlier in military schools they taught how to correctly translate English abbreviations)))

      Of course they taught. And because I understand perfectly that in the phrase Massive Ordnance Air Blast there is no word that can be translated as "explosive".

      Quote: Ckyf
      If you are even a little versed, then watch the video and find the visual differences between the explosion of Russian PAPA and American MOM:

      Is truth gradually beginning to get to you ??? If the Russian ammunition belongs to push-pull, and the American to single-cycle BOW, and therefore the American thermobaric bomb certainly does not have the process of creating an aerosol cloud, respectively, and they explode in different ways?
      This is progress !!!

      Quote: Ckyf
      In your last post, there was nothing besides idle talk and gurgling.

      This is in your opinion. However, he was. And he was the last on the branch. Therefore, your statement that "you have gone somewhere ..." is a lie.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 4 November 2013 08: 29
    -1
    Quote: Spade

    And he was absolutely right. Because your answers did not contain a single fact. Exclusively from questions, epithets and attempts to get personal. Even when it all came down to the fact that the only thing that could be answered "yes" or "no"
    Beautifully lying, directly inspired. I brought my questions to which you gurgled and were silent. 15 of my questions to your 60 answers.
    My question about your artillery education is the transition to personality? However ... If they didn’t write turbidity, there would be no questions at all.
    I have given you specific concepts and facts that you most stubbornly did not want to see, because this is completely at odds with your fabrications. Now I am 100% sure that you do not have any military education, at most courses for reserve officers, and belong to the type of users of the so-called. "PAPER GENERALS" who have a very superficial knowledge of the war literature and at the same time a great conceit. As the saying goes - "for a penny of ammunition, for a ruble of ambition."
    Now this is a transition to the individual. I do not like those who think of themselves as profane.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 November 2013 12: 38
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      I gave you specific concepts and facts

      Yeah, there was a case. Should I repeat the list of "facts" that I have already given you? A list that contains in a row and without any exception all your statements on one topic? There are ZERO facts
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 4 November 2013 08: 58
    -1
    Quote: Spade

    Have you read what is written on your link? There is talk about brisance clouds of air-fuel mixture.
    Brisance, she and the match head brisance. Do not la la.

    Quote: Spade
    But we, I hope, have found out that thermobaric ammunition works somewhat differently than volume-detonating ones, and for the explosion they do not need to create an aerosol cloud.
    Yes ... Bullshit squared.

    Quote: Spade
    Moreover, in the anaerobic stage of the explosion, the components of the thermobaric munition behave absolutely the same as traditional explosives That is, they destroy the shell with the formation of fragments.
    Do you understand what you wrote? )))
    The anaerobic stage is the process of chemical mixing with an oxidizing agent, translated into public language your phrase sounds like this - "In the process of mixing the components of thermobaric ammunition with air during an explosion, they behave absolutely the same as traditional explosives That is, they destroy the projectile with the formation of fragments. "
    Now, unlearned minds guess - like this, the ammunition explodes and mixes with air, and then crushes the shell into fragments)))

    Quote: Spade

    I apologize, did you understand what you wrote yourself? "BOV and TBB belong to the same type of ammunition!" Vegetables and carrots are one type of food! A phenomenal discovery.
    It will be even more phenomenal if you learn that carrots are vegetables.

    Quote: Spade

    Dear, I make a clear distinction between two types of volumetric explosion ammunition: volumetric detonating and thermobaric.
    It will not be a revelation for you that this is one and the same in essence, but having a difference in the mechanism of operation?

    Quote: Spade

    Do you find scientific terms strange? Very arrogant. In single-stroke volumetric explosion ammunition, depending on their device, there are four modes of their operation. Turbulent afterburning is one of them. There's nothing you can do about it ... It is very difficult to argue with terms, even if you use articles of the "BOV for Dummies" style
    You sprinkle with scientific terms, well, no fig in them without understanding. Everything is much simpler than you saved up))) I have already given a typical structural difference between ODB and TBB. Everything else on your part is just a bunch of words.
    Stupidly copy-paste the downloaded phrases from the textbook yet do not give the ability to understand the design.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 November 2013 12: 30
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      Brisance, she and the match head brisance. Do not la la.

      I cited a popular science article from your link. It is in question only about the brisance of the aerosol cloud. It is difficult to refute this with the "argument" "Don't la-la".

      Quote: Ckyf
      Do you understand what you wrote? )))
      The anaerobic stage is the process of chemical mixing with an oxidizer, translated into public language, your phrase sounds like this - "In the process of mixing the components of a thermobaric ammunition with air during an explosion, they behave exactly the same as traditional explosives. That is, they destroy the projectile with the formation of fragments."
      Now, unlearned minds guess - like this, the ammunition explodes and mixes with air, and then crushes the shell into fragments)))

      Yes, no mixing. Christmas tree sticks, is it really that hard to understand NO MIXING, the process of explosion of the thermobaric charge begins with DETONATION

      And the word "anaerobic" just means "without air"

      Quote: Ckyf
      It will not be a revelation for you that this is one and the same in essence, but having a difference in the mechanism of operation?

      And also they have a different composition of the filling, a different device, different actions for the purpose, different restrictions in the conditions of use. All different.
      The only thing that is identical is that they are assigned to the same class of ammunition of a volume explosion

      Quote: Ckyf
      I have already made a typical structural difference between ODB and TBB.

      The main difference between them is the number of detonators. You either forgot about it or didn’t know about it. And where and how the main charge is located is essentially not important. Its main function is not to spray the aerosol mixture, but in order to create conditions for the start of detonation of the thermobaric mixture inside the shell of the projectile.

      Once again, thermobaric relate to single stroke volumetric explosion ammunition. They don’t have a process of spraying filling before detonation.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 4 November 2013 13: 39
    -1
    Quote: Spade

    I cited a popular science article from your link. It is in question only about the brisance of the aerosol cloud. It is difficult to refute this with the "argument" "Don't la-la".
    What do you want to prove or disprove? What match head and gasoline vapors have brisance? They have.

    Quote: Spade

    Yes, no mixing. Christmas tree sticks, is it really that hard to understand NO MIXING, the process of explosion of the thermobaric charge begins with DETONATION
    Yah? Are you not going to write a thesis? If you write, then indicate that the process of toll explosion also begins with detonation. Hence the conclusion: TNT is a thermobaric explosive.
    What can be mixing if everything starts with detonation)))

    Quote: Spade
    And the word "anaerobic" just means "without air"
    Of course. Air (more precisely, its components) is contained in the TBB filler.

    Quote: Spade

    The main difference between them is the number of detonators. You either forgot about it or didn’t know about it.
    Really? And I thought it was a sinful thing that it was completely different - having one detonator, arrange it so that the detonation would occur unevenly, creating a superposition of shock waves from the edges to the center. My errors are deep ...
    When the concentration of shock waves toward the center occurs, what happens to the pressure and temperature in the center of the gas cloud?
    You can stick at least ten detonators, but in addition to reducing reliability, we won’t get anything.

    Quote: Spade
    And where and how the main charge is located is essentially not important. Its main function is not to spray the aerosol mixture, but in order to create conditions for the start of detonation of the thermobaric mixture inside the shell of the shell.
    See above.

    Quote: Spade
    Once again, thermobaric relate to single stroke volumetric explosion ammunition. They don’t have a process of spraying filling before detonation.
    Really to single-cycle? Horror...
    In fact, TBS works according to a two-stroke explosion scheme)))) In this case, the TNT explosion coefficient is 3-4.
    They spray, alas. But incomplete. It is the location of the detonator that affects the creation of the TB effect.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 November 2013 13: 47
      0
      In short, there is a FULL LACK of KNOWLEDGE and therefore here is your materiel:









      (c) Selivanov V.V. Means of destruction and ammunition

      Until you have at least the slightest knowledge about the subject of the dispute, everything will turn into a transfusion from empty to empty.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 4 November 2013 15: 22
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    In short, there is a FULL LACK of KNOWLEDGE and therefore here is your materiel:
    (c) Selivanov V.V. Means of destruction and ammunition
    ))))
    That was what I was convinced of. When you read smart books, learn to at least understand what you read.
    Well, now does TNT relate to TB explosives?

    Quote: Spade

    Until you have at least the slightest knowledge about the subject of the dispute, everything will turn into a transfusion from empty to empty.
    The slightest knowledge?)))
    Mr. "Connoisseur", what I have described is an accurate presentation of your copy-paste, but without "scientific terms", the essence of which you do not understand at all.
    I do not see the answer to the questions posed before you in the previous post. But the answer to them accurately describes the essence of TBB.
    You actually finished school, not to mention the courses "Chemistry of Powders and Explosives" and "Gas Dynamics"?)))

    The second time I come across a user who, in the subject of the dispute, doesn’t understand anything at all, is unable to explain the essence of the process in his own words, writes nonsense, refers to copy-paste and inflates his cheeks.

    What is shown in the figure? Really BomboMater))) And now we read what the American military comrades write about her and compare with the one written in your textbook http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm
    This is one example of the harm of stupid copy-paste of some "experts" materiel.))))
    Now take a breath ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 November 2013 16: 18
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      Mr. "Connoisseur", what I described is an accurate presentation of your copy-paste, but without "scientific terms"

      laughing Do you even realize how stupid you look now?

      Quote: Ckyf
      I do not see the answer to the questions posed before you in the previous post.

      Yes please:

      Quote: Ckyf
      What do you want to prove or disprove?

      That the article doesn’t mention anything about thermobaric ammunition in your article, because of this, the author makes an erroneous opinion about the small brisant effect of all ammunition in a volumetric explosion.
      Quote: Ckyf
      What match head and gasoline vapors have brisance?

      They have, but it has nothing to do with the article. And does not mean that her conclusions are not wrong.
      Quote: Ckyf
      Yah?

      Well yes. The book, I think, describes quite clearly that the process of explosion of a thermobaric ammunition begins with the detonation of the main charge, which causes detonation of the thermobaric mixture inside the shell of the projectile. No "mixing" The components are initially mixed in a thermobaric mixture.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Are you not going to write a thesis?

      No.

      Quote: Ckyf
      When the concentration of shock waves toward the center occurs, what happens to the pressure and temperature in the center of the gas cloud?

      In thermobaric ammunition. The pressure rises at the front of the shock wave, the same thing happens with temperature. The burning of metal particles and explosion products in air increases the temperature and duration of the shock wave.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Really to single-cycle?

      Yes, to single-cycle.

      I answered all your questions, even the most stupid ones. Now are you able to handle the facts?
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 November 2013 16: 19
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      You actually finished school, not to mention the courses "Chemistry of Powders and Explosives" and "Gas Dynamics"?)))
      The second time I come across a user who, in the subject of the dispute, doesn’t understand anything at all, is unable to explain the essence of the process in his own words, writes nonsense, refers to copy-paste and inflates his cheeks.

      Trying to get personal because of the complete lack of arguments. But you will not be able to jump so simply. I will not play these games and translate the discussion based on facts (at least on my part) into a banal srach. How would you not like that.

      Dipping you into your mistakes and ignorance is much nicer.

      Quote: Ckyf
      What is shown in the figure? Really BomboMother)))

      Exactly. You guessed.

      Quote: Ckyf
      comparable to what is written in your textbook http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm
      This is one example of the harm of stupid copy-paste of some "experts" materiel.))))

      Have you read it, your link? Or again, there was not enough English knowledge, and somewhere you imagined the word "high-explosive"
    3. SkiF_RnD
      SkiF_RnD 4 November 2013 18: 29
      0
      The MOAB weapon is based upon the same principle as the BLU-82 "Daisy Cutter", except that it is larger and has a guidance system.


      The GBU-43 / B is large, powerful and accurately delivered. high explosive.


      In your source, MOAB is called "high explosive", that is, high explosive. At the same time, below in the text, it is also described as acting on the principle of ODB GBU-43 / B, more powerful and manageable. Either it's a matter of terminology, or the incompetence of the authors of the article, please clarify this, if it doesn't bother you. hi

      (Perhaps the point is in the very concept of "high explosiveness." In fact, ODBs have such a characteristic, and, therefore, can be called that, if such is the tradition in foreign technical literature.)

      Yes, and it’s not very clear what embarrassed you in your opponent’s previous comments?
      There are such single-cycle BOVs, I won’t argue about the difference in designations, but the fact is on the face. So is he right?
      By brisance, it is obvious that Lopatov had in view of the inconsistency of the description of the ODB in the source you cited (due to the fact that one of the two damaging factors of the ODB is not indicated). Why should I find fault with words? Some match heads ...
      And on the issue of detonation / mixing is the same, because you just did not understand the person. The fact that TBB (if you accept the notation of respected Lopatov, you can figure it out yourself) detonates immediately, and not after mixing (as in push-pull ODB) means, first of all, the difference in the mechanism of action between these BOVs, and not similarity with some other things. You evaded the argument, and you yourself blame your opponent for your inability to answer you.

      You can stick at least ten detonators, but in addition to reducing reliability, we won’t get anything.

      But you are wrong, with all due respect. How do we get it. Another thing is that the location of the detonator, of course, is also important.
      Do not blame me for interfering, I could not indifferently read your comments and the comments of Lopatov, especially since you give the impression of more than an adequate person. hi
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 4 November 2013 18: 50
        +2
        MOAB is simple. The article states that the bomb uses "composition H6".
        These are trinitrotoluene, hexogen, nitrocellulose, aluminum powder, calcium chloride and wax. It is a fluid mixture.
        Now look at the tutorial:
        As a rule, thermobaric mixtures are pasty mixtures based on liquid fuel with a high negative oxygen balance (for example, isopropyl nitrate), into which high-explosive explosive powder (for example, hexogen) and finely dispersed powder of a combustible metal (for example, aluminum) are added.


        Compare. The mixture is pasty, nitrocellulose and trinitrotoluene (-74%) act as substances with a large negative oxygen balance, metal powder is available, as is hexogen ... Therefore, this is TBS.

        It’s just that on this Internet portal they don’t know the effect of this bomb on the target, that’s all.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 4 November 2013 16: 42
    -1
    Quote: Spade

    Trying to get personal because of the complete lack of arguments. But you will not be able to jump so simply. I will not play these games and translate the discussion based on facts (at least on my part) into a banal srach. How would you not like that.

    Dipping you into your mistakes and ignorance is much nicer.
    The drain is counted.
    I have never met a more arrogant opponent. He posts a copy-paste in which he does not understand a shisha, is unable to explain the essence of the processes in understandable words, writes nonsense, ignores my answers, does not answer any leading questions on the topic and thinks that he dunks me)))
    About the discussion. I again collect all my questions on the topic and watch how you once again merge quietly?

    Quote: Spade

    Exactly. You guessed.
    Yah? And I was so worried ...

    Quote: Spade

    Have you read it, your link? Or again, there was not enough English knowledge, and somewhere you imagined the word "high-explosive"
    If you are a connoisseur, could you tell me why and why the head of the bomb has a lively shape characteristic of high-explosive bombs? And then we'll talk about MOAB ...
    And yet, how much does your copy-paste match with the data of your American comrades?
    Is there enough air?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 November 2013 17: 03
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      The drain is counted.

      Of course. Once again, I am not going to discuss with you either myself or you. I’m much more interested in finally hearing the facts from you.


      Quote: Ckyf
      About the discussion. I again collect all my questions on the topic and watch how you once again merge quietly?

      You like it, ask questions instead of formulating your own opinion. Well, let's collect it.


      Quote: Ckyf
      If you are a connoisseur, could you tell me why and why the head of the bomb has a lively shape characteristic of high-explosive bombs?

      One must think because it is not used on the moon? And therefore aerodynamics are of great importance - the Earth, if you notice, has an atmosphere. And a guided bomb with a warhead of a different shape will be too unstable.

      And yet, how much does your copy-paste match with the data of your American comrades?

      Because of your lack of knowledge of English, you confused everything a little. "GlobalSecurity" is not military, not developers, and not industrialists. This is the same Internet portal as the Military Review. Moreover, they do not know what "thermobaric ammunition" is. Just like you did not know before familiarizing yourself with the materiel.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 4 November 2013 17: 30
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Do you even realize how stupid you look now?
    "A good scientist can always convey any complex topic to ordinary listeners in simple language." (Niels Bohr)
    Niels Bohr was a very stupid person ...

    Quote: Spade

    That the article doesn’t mention anything about thermobaric ammunition in your article, because of this, the author makes an erroneous opinion about the small brisant effect of all ammunition in a volumetric explosion.
    Read the link:
    "300mm. 9M55S rocket with a thermobaric warhead ... and hereinafter."
    The author simply describes the action of the ODB.

    Quote: Spade
    They have, but it has nothing to do with the article. And does not mean that her conclusions are not wrong.
    Really? There is a photo and description, for a person versed in the topic this is enough.
    You, as I see, need a textbook ...

    Quote: Spade

    No "mixing" The components are initially mixed in a thermobaric mixture.
    Detonation causes detonation ... But when will the explosion?
    The components are mixed and what's next after charge detonation?

    Quote: Spade

    Quote: Ckyf
    Are you not going to write a thesis?

    No.
    Write, for this you will be assigned an academician, because you will be able to transfer ordinary tol to TB BB. The discovery of global significance.

    Quote: Spade

    In thermobaric ammunition. The pressure rises at the front of the shock wave, the same thing happens with temperature. The burning of metal particles and explosion products in air increases the temperature and duration of the shock wave.
    Really never? There is a structural diagram of the location of the initiator of the explosion, which yours NEVER turns into ALWAYS and thereby achieves the thermobaric effect while reducing pressure at the front of the shock wave.
    The rest is baby talk about the physics of the explosion of a firecracker.

    Quote: Spade

    Yes, to single-cycle.
    Alas, Mr. connoisseur, alas ... The structural arrangement of the only detonator makes this push-pull device.

    Quote: Spade
    I answered all your questions, even the most stupid ones. Now are you able to handle the facts?
    Your babble is not the answer to any question.
    Here is the final fact - the main difference between TBB and ODB lies in the structural arrangement of the detonator, place it differently - and TBB will turn into ODB and vice versa. Hence all the physics of the explosion difference. As an example, the equilateral compression of a balloon increases the pressure inside it, and if it is compressed more quickly, then the temperature. So, "expert" ...
    Well, Mr. "expert", let's lay out the copy-paste.
    It is interesting to answer, your "answers" give rise to a bunch of questions and do not carry any semantic meaning.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 November 2013 18: 03
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      Read the link:
      "300mm. 9M55S rocket with a thermobaric warhead ... and hereinafter."

      And at the same time, the author is mistaken. Because the warhead of this missile is not thermobaric, but volume-detonating. It is push-pull, and therefore cannot be a TBDC by default. This is clearly evidenced by the ban on volley fire by these RS

      Quote: Ckyf
      Detonation causes detonation ... But when will the explosion?
      The components are mixed and what's next after charge detonation?

      Tuesday. Re-read the materiel, it looks like you didn’t understand anything.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Really never? There is a structural diagram of the location of the initiator of the explosion, which yours NEVER turns into ALWAYS and thereby achieves the thermobaric effect while reducing pressure at the front of the shock wave.

      Precisely never. Regardless of the location of the initiator, "concentration of shock waves to the center" (c) does not arise in the thermobaric munition. Moreover, the "concentration of shock waves to the center" (c) cannot "create a thermobaric effect, since it is created by metal powders and gaseous products of the explosive transformation of the first, anaerobic, stage of explosion. And they do not reduce, but increase the pressure and temperature during front of the shock wave, and also prolong its action.

      Quote: Ckyf
      The rest is baby talk describing the physics of the explosion of a baby firecracker

      Another "iron argument"

      Quote: Ckyf
      Alas, Mr. connoisseur, alas ... The structural arrangement of the only detonator makes this push-pull device.

      Do you understand your phrase yourself? "The design layout of the single detonator makes this a push-pull device."
      Dear, at least two detonators are needed to detonate push-pull ammunition. The first is for sabotaging the dispersing charge, the second is for detonation of the aerosol cloud. There is only one detonator in thermobaric ammunition, they do not create an aerosol cloud beforehand, and therefore they are single-acting BWAs.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Your babble is not the answer to any question.

      Again the "iron argument"

      Quote: Ckyf
      I bring the final fact - the main difference between the TBB and the ODB is the structural arrangement of the detonator, place it differently - and the TBB will turn into an ODB and vice versa.

      A bit wrong. If a dispersive charge is introduced into the thermobaric munition, the filling is replaced, one or more detonators are added to initiate an aerosol cloud, then we get the ODB. That is, only the building will remain from TBB.


      Quote: Ckyf
      Interestingly, your "answers" give rise to a bunch of questions and do not carry any semantic meaning.

      This is due to the fact that you really did not learn the matbase. Misunderstanding appears due to lack of knowledge.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 4 November 2013 17: 49
    0
    Quote: Spade

    Of course. Once again, I am not going to discuss with you either myself or you. I’m much more interested in finally hearing the facts from you.
    Everything is written long ago, only you don’t understand.

    Quote: Spade

    You like it, ask questions instead of formulating your own opinion. Well, let's collect it.
    It has long been formulated, but you either do not know how to read, or you do not understand what you read.

    Quote: Spade

    And therefore aerodynamics are of great importance - the Earth, if you notice, has an atmosphere. And a guided bomb with a warhead of a different shape will be too unstable.
    ODAB-500PMV stupid ... and with a parachute in the back.
    Only high-explosive bombs have a live part. And the stabilizer gives stability to the bomb.

    Quote: Spade
    they are not military, not developers or industrialists. This is the same Internet portal as the Military Review.
    In fact, this portal belongs to the US Department of Defense. But they are stupid against you and they themselves do not understand what they are writing.

    Quote: Spade
    Moreover, they do not know what "thermobaric ammunition" is. Just like you did not know before familiarizing yourself with the materiel.
    Mr. expert, I was familiar with the TBB materiel when you walked under the table (or ...).
    Do not pay attention to military Americans, they are stupid ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 November 2013 18: 11
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      Everything is written long ago, only you don’t understand.

      That due to the fact that you are openly "floating" in the main issue, you need to translate the discussion into a discussion on the level of "myself ..."? I understand perfectly.


      Quote: Ckyf
      ODAB-500PMV stupid ... and with a parachute in the back.

      And also uncontrollable. But KAB-500-OD is absolutely not stupid, since it is controllable. However, this does not make it a high-explosive, as clearly indicated by the letters "OD"

      Quote: Ckyf
      In fact, this portal belongs to the US Department of Defense.

      Yah?

      Quote: Ckyf
      Mr. Expert, I was familiar with the TBB materiel when you walked under the table

      You saw, I applied. In real databases.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 4 November 2013 18: 59
    0
    Quote: Spade

    That due to the fact that you are openly "floating" in the main issue, you need to translate the discussion into a discussion on the level of "myself ..."? I understand perfectly.
    I'm swimming?)))
    Mr. "expert", so what is the structural difference between the location of the detonator in the BOV, which turns the ODB into TBB? Because In your opinion, I am "swimming" in this thread, trying to get an answer to this question from you for a long time, hinting and giving leading questions, then would you be so kind as to get me out of this "floating". Waiting ...

    Quote: Spade

    And also uncontrollable. But KAB-500-OD is absolutely not stupid, since it is controllable. However, this does not make it a high-explosive, as clearly indicated by the letters "OD"
    And in the garden of elderberry, and in Kiev, uncle. The letters indicate only the type of equipment and its corresponding use. KAB-500 is a HEAVY AB.

    Quote: Spade
    Yah?
    Well yes...

    Quote: Spade

    You saw, I applied. In real databases.
    Yeah. From your answers this is clearly visible. You have already been once the Chief of Staff ADN. Who are you signing up for now?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 November 2013 19: 29
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      Mr. "expert", so what is the structural difference between the location of the detonator in the BOV, which turns the ODB into TBB?

      Once again, I repeat that the difference between ODB and TBB is not to place the detonator. In my opinion, this is the third time I have indicated, but I can calculate, maybe more.
      What is the ODB? The housing in which the filling is placed. In the center is a dispersing charge with its own fuse. Plus one, or more often several fuses to initiate an aerosol cloud.
      TBB: The housing in which the thermobaric mixture is placed. In the center is the main charge with a detonator.
      What are the design differences:
      -Different filling
      - In the ODB dispersive charge, creating an aerosol cloud, in TBB - the main charge, creating the condition for the detonation of TBS.
      - The ODB has more than one detonator, the TBB has one.

      It is impossible to answer your question, as it contains incorrect information. Like "how many hooves does an elephant have?"


      Quote: Ckyf
      KAB-500 is a HEAVY AB.

      And KAB-500-OD is volume-detonating. However, she cannot be her, since she does not have a blunt head part, did I understand you correctly? But, for example, high-explosive OFAB-250 can be exclusively volume-detonating, since its head part is flat.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Yeah. From your answers this is clearly visible. You were already the Chief of Staff of ADN. Who are you signing up for now?

      I don’t know how it is in your country, but here you cannot get to the post of NSH right after graduation from college. Accordingly, before that, I was a SOB, and then a battery commander. And as a design bureau, he went as a spotter with reconnaissance and infantry. With all that it implies, including the use of "Bumblebees" during the assault on Pionersky. I was also present during the work of flamethrowers and "Buratino" during the assault on Komsomolskoye and during the launch of missiles from the thermobaric warhead "Shturmov" 9P149
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 4 November 2013 19: 54
    -1
    Quote: Spade

    Once again, I repeat that the difference between ODB and TBB is not to place the detonator.
    It was not for nothing that I wrote about the ball and about its compression.
    Structurally, the ODB differs from the TBB in that in the TBB the end ends of the detonator are outside the mixture. Further describe physics or guess yourself?

    Quote: Spade
    It is impossible to answer your question, as it contains incorrect information. Like "how many hooves does an elephant have?"
    Of course the wrong ones. We mislead the enemy and change the terrain so that he gets confused in the maps.

    Quote: Spade

    And KAB-500-OD is volume-detonating. However, she cannot be her, since she does not have a blunt head part, did I understand you correctly? But, for example, high-explosive OFAB-250 can be exclusively volume-detonating, since its head part is flat.
    Understood nothing.

    Quote: Spade

    I don’t know how it is in your country, but here you cannot get to the post of NSH right after graduation from college. Accordingly, before that, I was a SOB, and then a battery commander. And as a design bureau, he went as a spotter with reconnaissance and infantry. With all that it implies, including the use of "Bumblebees" during the assault on Pionersky. I was also present during the work of flamethrowers and "Buratino" during the assault on Komsomolskoye and during the launch of missiles from the thermobaric warhead "Shturmov" 9P149
    I do not believe.
    How to light from a vending machine? How to charge the horn in seven seconds? 373?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 November 2013 20: 16
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      Structurally, the ODB differs from the TBB in that in the TBB the end ends of the detonator are outside the mixture. Further describe physics or guess yourself?

      Of course you describe. And not only physics, but also the device. Moreover, both thermobaric ammunition and volume-detonating.

      Have you really agreed to speak the language of facts?


      Quote: Ckyf
      Understood nothing.

      I am hinting to you that judging the equipment of an aerial bomb by the shape of its warhead is a few mmm ... incorrect

      Quote: Ckyf
      I do not believe.

      Do you think I care less about it? You can light a cigarette from the trunk, "horns" eat, and shops quickly equip from clips through an adapter, and 373 is the number of your stupid posts on this site. Is that correct?
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 4 November 2013 20: 46
    -1
    Quote: Spade

    Of course you describe. And not only physics, but also the device. Moreover, both thermobaric ammunition and volume-detonating.
    Actually, I didn’t come to give lectures.
    Mr. "expert", I addressed this question to you, you could not answer it, mind you ...
    The exposed ends of the checkers outside the explosive mixture have a slightly higher velocity of propagation of the shock wave and gases, which somehow envelop the forming dispersed cloud, forming additional pressure and increasing the temperature of the explosion.
    Just something, Mr. "expert" .... This I squeezed out of you throughout the day. Successful swims with puffy cheeks.

    Quote: Spade

    I am hinting to you that judging the equipment of an aerial bomb by the shape of its warhead is a few mmm ... incorrect
    I, in fact, did not judge the warhead equipment on the warhead, but oh, mmmm ..., the purpose of the bomb.
    Read my posts again.

    Quote: Spade

    Do you think I care less about it? You can light a cigarette from the trunk, "horns" eat, and shops quickly equip from clips through an adapter, and 373 is the number of your stupid posts on this site. Is that correct?
    Clear.
    Tell tales about your "combat" past in the children's garden. I don’t have to lie.
    I have already met one "combat paratrooper" who made BSL parachute jumps to the rear of the Mujahideen and who fought BTG on a snail. Another one got caught ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 4 November 2013 21: 30
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      The exposed ends of the checkers outside the explosive mixture have a slightly higher velocity of propagation of the shock wave and gases, which somehow envelop the forming dispersed cloud, forming additional pressure and increasing the temperature of the explosion.

      This, of course, is very interesting, and remotely resembles the principle of the action of a charge with an active shell, but dear, we are not discussing it, but thermobaric and volume-detonating ammunition. So bother to talk on the topic. If knowledge, of course, is. Although you have not yet shown them.

      Quote: Ckyf
      I, in fact, did not judge the warhead equipment on the warhead, but oh, mmmm ..., the purpose of the bomb.

      Purpose ... The shape of the head ... This is even more original. How can the shape of the warhead distinguish anti-radar ammunition from that intended for the destruction of fire weapons and manpower of the enemy? I will really wait for this secret knowledge.


      Quote: Ckyf
      Tell tales about your "combat" past in the children's garden. I don’t have to lie.

      Come on, a person charging horns and lighting a cigarette from a machine can hang any kind of noodles on his ears. Even about the speed of rotation of the towbar and its dependence on the position of the swivel.

      How to speed up the reduction of the D-30 to a combat position, and why should this not be done?
      Why do I need a cardboard box and electrical tape at KNI?
      What is Madonna Service?
      How much can I pour into the cap?
      Where is the cigarette lighter installed in MT-LB?
      Why dig a ditch around the base center and dump brushwood into it?
      What is unloading, and why is a rope needed for it?
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 5 November 2013 18: 57
    0
    Quote: Spade

    This, of course, is very interesting, and remotely resembles the principle of the action of a charge with an active shell, but dear, we are not discussing it, but thermobaric and volume-detonating ammunition. So bother to talk on the topic. If knowledge, of course, is. Although you have not yet shown them.
    No need to write smart words, because again write dregs.

    Quote: Spade

    Purpose ... The shape of the head ... This is even more original. How can the shape of the warhead distinguish anti-radar ammunition from that intended for the destruction of fire weapons and manpower of the enemy? I will really wait for this secret knowledge.
    Connoisseur, the main types of aviation ammunition - fragmentation and high-explosive, the rest - auxiliary and special subgroups. Write as a keepsake.

    Quote: Spade

    Come on, a person charging horns and lighting a cigarette from a machine can hang any kind of noodles on his ears. Even about the speed of rotation of the towbar and its dependence on the position of the swivel.

    1. Do not hammer openers.
    2. Improvised hood.
    3. Starting heater, spiral.
    4. I did not drink.
    5. I was not at the base centers.
    6. Unloading was not worn, only a bra.

    Anyone who really fought will answer my questions.
    Tell tales in the kindergarten.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 November 2013 21: 49
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      No need to write smart words, because again write dregs.

      No, you write about the dregs about "creating a dispersed cloud" at the thermobaric charge. Well, damn it, what else do you need to finally understand the principle of TBZ operation? I even laid out a scan of a clever book, but no, even a stake on my head.


      Quote: Ckyf
      Expert, the main types of aviation ammunition - fragmentation and high-explosive

      Tell it to the flyers, have fun.

      Quote: Ckyf
      1. Do not hammer openers.
      2. Improvised hood.
      3. Starting heater, spiral.
      4. I did not drink.
      5. I was not at the base centers.
      6. Unloading was not worn, only a bra.

      After a day of consultations with those who served in the army, there are two correct answers. Not much. By the way, the one who claims that "I did not wear unloading, only a bra" should know what "unloading" is, this was often encountered there. Well, and the Madonna service ... even the staff rats who came for a couple of days knew about this souvenir.

      Damn, "do not hammer the openers ..." conscripts in training courses know this, but you do not. An elementary question for the artilleryman you are portraying. They would also suggest not removing it from the towbar ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 November 2013 22: 00
      0
      Here you have more questions for a day:
      1. How to raincoat a tank with tents?
      2. What are bets?
      3. Why do I need an IPP when installing an extension?
      4. Why do MVs always have a sledgehammer on hand at old motorbikes
      5. How can tankers help with washing?
      6. Why are droppers in short supply?

      Consult with employees, maybe the result will be better.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 5 November 2013 21: 45
    0
    Quote: Spade

    Do you think I care less about it? You can light a cigarette from the trunk, "horns" eat, and shops quickly equip from clips through an adapter, and 373 is the number of your stupid posts on this site. Is that correct?
    Only militants like you light a cigarette from the barrel, I have never seen clips or adapters anywhere, I have no one who knows 373 ....
    So then, the storyteller ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 November 2013 22: 13
      +1
      Mugs are lit from the machine, which have neither lighters, nor matches, nor wind matches, which are in every dry pack. That is, people who are absolutely unfit for life.
      Ferrule and adapter shaft.

      Quote: Ckyf
      373 everyone knows who had to ....

      But not you ...
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 5 November 2013 23: 03
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Mugs are lit from the machine, which have neither lighters, nor matches, nor wind matches, which are in every dry pack. That is, people who are absolutely unfit for life.
    Ferrule and adapter shaft.

    Quote: Ckyf
    373 everyone knows who had to ....

    But not you ...
    Boevichok, waiting for answers ... The second day has passed ... The simplest concepts for those unfit for life.
    I didn’t base with the tankers, at MTLB I didn’t bring the CP to an ugly state, I didn’t use stretchers, I didn’t deal with droppers, I didn’t meet staff rats, I didn’t climb the forums.


    I wonder how you drive some expert into a dead end, then he immediately has "the last argument of the kings" - how he crushed enemies with this weapon. You start asking for elementary things - silence ...



    Quote: Spade

    No, you write about the dregs about "creating a dispersed cloud" at the thermobaric charge. Well, damn it, what else do you need to finally understand the principle of TBZ operation? I even laid out a scan of a clever book, but no, even a stake on my head.
    You have posted completely empty information applicable to all explosives, but you don’t even understand this. Stake on your head amuse.

    Quote: Spade
    Tell it to the flyers, have fun.
    You don't even know that

    Quote: Spade
    After two days of consultation with those who served in the army, tell us two correct answers. Not much.
    I do not need to consult, I do not feed on forums like you for days, there is such an occupation - the job is called.

    Quote: Spade
    Damn, "do not hammer the openers ..." conscripts in training courses know this, but you do not. An elementary question for the artilleryman you are portraying. They would also suggest not removing it from the towbar ...
    Expert, tell me how much time it takes to hammer openers and how much to bring to battle. What charge can I shoot without openers? Remind me, I wasn’t a conscript in studies ... More like that, I was engaged in nonsense, I lit a cigarette from a machine gun))))
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 November 2013 23: 58
      +1
      And what do you answer? I didn’t have fun with childish tricks like lighting from a machine gun. You can, of course, shoot the barrel to light from it, or do something even more idiotic like a tracer shot into the ground, but normal commanders get such rationalizers into a jug.
      The same goes for "high-speed loading" with pulling out the spring. The only method is clips and adapter. Even tapping on a hard surface while loading will eventually "irritate" the magazine. As well as inserting the first cartridge into the inspection hole. to "discharge quickly". As well as unloading one store with another, it can also come out sideways.
      What is "373"? I have no idea. Also, like you, you do not know anything about unloading mines. Although, according to your legend, you should know this ironically. Well, the fact that it is best to install a grenade on a stretcher by replacing the safety pin with a pin from the IPP knows any warrior.
      All that you know is MT-LB, here I agree. And that’s all ...

      Quote: Ckyf
      You have posted completely empty information applicable to all explosives, but you don’t even understand this. Stake on your head amuse.

      Dear, this is a textbook. And he released Baumanka. I am sure that you know much less about this subject. Just trying to portray the opposite.

      Quote: Ckyf
      I do not need to consult, I do not feed on forums like you for days, there is such an occupation - the job is called.

      Who studied what ... I have a lot of free time. Who is to blame for not having been taken to the military school because of flat feet?


      Quote: Ckyf
      Expert, tell me how much time it takes to hammer openers and how much to bring to battle. What charge can I shoot without openers? Remind me, I wasn’t a conscript in studies ... More like that, I was engaged in nonsense, I lit a cigarette from a machine gun))))

      What varied? They are not blocked, they are pressed. And then it takes seconds. But if one coulter comes across any stone, then big problems will appear, and the implement will have to try to hang it again. Therefore, this is prohibited. However, they do it anyway.
      Well, about "doing nonsense, lighting a cigarette from a machine gun" - here you are right. Self-critical. You didn't have a normal commander to put it in a tambourine on time. For enlightenment and knocking out "innovation".
  • aversun
    aversun 11 November 2013 06: 54
    0
    Concerning the term "Vacuum bomb" - http://army.armor.kiev.ua/hist/obomvzryv.shtml
    Now about "air burnout".
    The air does not burn and consists of 78% non-combustible nitrogen and 21% oxygen. What happens when the filling of the ODZ burns out?
    Firstly, nitrogen does not burn and remains, i.e. there is no vacuum anymore.
    Secondly, as the usual ODZ filling is lit, suppose that it is propylene oxide:
    C3H6O + 4O2 = 3CO2 + 3H2O basic combustion equation
    2C3H6O + 5O2 = 6CO + 6H2O partially forms the formation of CO - carbon monoxide.
    In the first case, we see that 4 volumes of oxygen went into combustion and 6 volumes of combustion products were obtained, in the second case, 5 volumes of oxygen 12 volumes of products. Those. nor can there be any reduction in pressure, in principle, on the contrary, as a result of combustion, the pressure rises. Another thing is that air and combustion products in a shock wave are compressed and when its front passes a certain line, it is followed by a discharge zone, but this is a property of any explosion.