Military Review

German Tornado: "Rocket System 80"

32
German Tornado: "Rocket System 80"In the early 70s, the Germans tried to create their long-range decentralized rocket launcher of decent caliber to partially replace the existing LARS-1 MLRS. I strongly suspect, by the way, that her main task would be remote mining on the ways of breaking through the Soviet tanks. Already the first estimates showed that missiles with a flight range of 60-80 kilometers are rather rather large and heavy, which means they require an appropriate chassis. To assess the solidity of the missiles - we can say that the six-barreled installation created in 1976 required neither more nor less as the chassis, but a Leopard-1 tank. However, it is likely that questions of escorting tank units also played a role, but nevertheless, more than six missiles did not fit on the tank chassis.


Launcher "Rocket System 80" was placed instead of the standard turret of the tank and was deployed trunks back in the direction of travel. Why is that? I guess. for reasons of balance of the design, so that there were no problems with the weight distribution of the tower. On the other hand, the car should not go on the attack, do not shoot direct fire. What does it matter where the trunk looks in the traveling position?

So, six 280-mm trunks allowed to throw about a ton of combat load at a distance of 80km, it would seem normal, but other considerations interfered. Namely - the program of modernization of the MLRS LARS to the level of LARS-2

And let the range of these machines in 2.5 times less than that of the rocket Leopard - but the cheapness of the launch and a rich assortment of shells forced the military and economists to prefer this modernization - the adoption of such a narrow-minded monstrous machine.
Originator:
http://strangernn.livejournal.com
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lopatov
    Lopatov 2 November 2013 10: 37
    +9
    I would not talk about "monstrousness" and even less about "narrowness of purpose"

    The chassis is because of the prevailing opinion among NATO military that the MLRS should be on a tracked chassis. The Germans simply did not bother with the creation of a new chassis, as the Americans put on what is.



    Well, in terms of "narrowness": a ton with high accuracy for 80 km is not narrowness. Let me remind you that the Germans by this time "FERA" was already in service
    1. Letterksi
      Letterksi 2 November 2013 10: 55
      +3
      Russian "Smerch" looks more serious
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 2 November 2013 11: 10
        +8
        "Monstrous"?
        "Tornado" is not ideal.
        The missile is expensive, ours were even forced to create a device for launches from the "Smerch" city missiles for combat training.
        Low operational mobility, we tried to put half of the package on the KamAZ chassis, but I'm not sure about such a "modernization": most likely, like the Kazakh MLRS, the device will be prone to overturning
      2. vova1973
        vova1973 2 November 2013 15: 55
        +1
        At 20 km in kind Smerch, but further excavator.
    2. Siberian German
      Siberian German 2 November 2013 19: 27
      +3
      a friend of mine in the 90s served in the Bundes - so he told me that the German RSZOs are very impressive, which is not surprising remember the 6 shovels during the Patriotic War
      1. Vorkot cat
        Vorkot cat 3 November 2013 22: 48
        +2
        German hexagon. laughing
        German six-barreled mortar Nebelwerfer 41 "Ivan" It didn’t differ in firing range nor in accuracy.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  2. vova1973
    vova1973 2 November 2013 12: 46
    +3
    at a distance of 80 km, an unguided missile will fly away not in the target, but in that direction. Acceptable accuracy NUR 20 km. Without a guidance system, any missile at a range of more than 20 km is a stupid waste of resources.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 2 November 2013 13: 43
      +5
      Quote: vova1973
      at a distance of 80 km, an unguided missile will fly away not in the target, but in that direction.

      We launch a test rocket with a corner reflector, detect the rocket on the trajectory, compare the real and ideal, introduce corrections, launch the entire package with sufficient accuracy. This was done by FERA for the Germans. An article on German "Lars" has appeared on the site today - read it, everything is described there.
      1. vova1973
        vova1973 2 November 2013 15: 53
        +1
        the fact is that at such a range there is a huge dispersion of any rocket. The introduction of amendments is useless. Shooting with precision accuracy is an axiom. But they demand to shoot with the method of full preparation - the enemy’s damage is much higher and the return strike will get a lower probability. Do not forget the electronic warfare, and LARS shoots at 20 km.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 2 November 2013 16: 09
          +2
          This is not a sighting, the rocket self-destructed in flight. That's why she is sighting.

          EW tools do not really help. Well, dispersion is just a price-accuracy ratio. The higher the manufacturing cost of the PC, the less dispersion can be achieved. In addition, it is not a fact that the missiles were monoblock, not cluster. In this case, High dispersion could be compensated.

          Uragan has a maximum range of 1 Vd in the region of 175 meters. But that doesn't bother anyone. Probably because of the given fragmentation zone of 1300 square meters.
          1. vova1973
            vova1973 2 November 2013 16: 13
            +1
            This is not a sighting, the rocket self-destructed in flight. Is she sighting?
            And what is your opinion?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 2 November 2013 16: 21
              +3
              It's hard to call a sighting. Rather, it is a very advanced analogue of a wind gun.
          2. vova1973
            vova1973 2 November 2013 16: 18
            0
            <Probably because of the given fragmentation zone of 1300 square meters.>
            This is just a radius of damage of 12 m. At 122 mm of HE - 25 meters.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 2 November 2013 17: 15
              +2
              Quote: vova1973
              It’s just a radius of 12 m

              S = 12 * 12 * 3.14 = 10,87 square meters. It is much less than 1300
              1. Kasym
                Kasym 3 November 2013 19: 39
                +2
                Sorry Lopatov, but the area of ​​Kruga with a radius of 12 meters is S = 452,16 square meters. m. hi
          3. vova1973
            vova1973 2 November 2013 16: 25
            +1
            <Hurricane has a maximum range of 1 Vd in the area of ​​175 meters.>
            Do you think increasing the range by 2 times will increase the dispersion by 2 times? Dispersion is increased by an order of magnitude.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 2 November 2013 18: 13
              +3
              No I do not think so. However, I am confident in a larger production culture in Germany. And in the associated smaller technical dispersion of missiles in a salvo. In addition, the tank base itself leads to less package fluctuations during a volley.
  3. vova1973
    vova1973 2 November 2013 12: 48
    +4
    NUR at a distance of over 20 km without a homing system
  4. vova1973
    vova1973 2 November 2013 16: 28
    0
    Quote: Spade
    This is not a sighting, the rocket self-destructed in flight. That's why she is sighting.

    EW tools do not really help. Well, dispersion is just a price-accuracy ratio. The higher the manufacturing cost of the PC, the less dispersion can be achieved. In addition, it is not a fact that the missiles were monoblock, not cluster. In this case, High dispersion could be compensated.

    Uragan has a maximum range of 1 Vd in the region of 175 meters. But that doesn't bother anyone. Probably because of the given fragmentation zone of 1300 square meters.

    What do you think how much is needed for HE 122 mm shells to suppress a platoon stronghold? Suppression is not annihilation?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 2 November 2013 18: 14
      +2
      300 to 200? And to see in PS and UO by yourself is not fate? In the applications.
  5. vova1973
    vova1973 2 November 2013 18: 29
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    300 to 200? And to see in PS and UO by yourself is not fate? In the applications.

    I already forgot the exact numbers, but about 70 pcs.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 2 November 2013 18: 45
      +2
      540. Subject to control of fire to defeat.
  6. vova1973
    vova1973 2 November 2013 18: 33
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: vova1973
    It’s just a radius of 12 m

    S = 12 * 12 * 3.14 = 10,87 square meters. It is much less than 1300

    I was mistaken in the calculation. According to your data, the radius of the defeat is about 21 m.
  7. vova1973
    vova1973 2 November 2013 18: 41
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    No I do not think so. However, I am confident in a larger production culture in Germany. And in the associated smaller technical dispersion of missiles in a salvo. In addition, the tank base itself leads to less package fluctuations during a volley.

    Didn’t I understand this at all? (What is production culture is this I know)
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 2 November 2013 18: 49
      +2
      The German copy-paste of the Katyusha shell had much less dispersion. This is a fact you cannot argue against.
  8. vova1973
    vova1973 2 November 2013 18: 52
    0
    Quote: Spade
    540. Subject to control of fire to defeat.

    Well, here for the defeat 540 to suppress 3 times less.
    Only the topic of our conversation was that at 20 km NUR would fall with acceptable accuracy, and at 80 km somewhere there. There is no way to make an NUR with adequate dispersion.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 2 November 2013 18: 54
      +1
      This is suppression, not annihilation. To destroy the figure must be increased.

      And yet, they do not shoot at such a range in GPs.
  9. vova1973
    vova1973 2 November 2013 19: 01
    +2
    Quote: Spade
    The German copy-paste of the Katyusha shell had much less dispersion. This is a fact you cannot argue against.

    His stabilization was rotation.
    By the way, at Grad too.
  10. vova1973
    vova1973 2 November 2013 19: 06
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    This is suppression, not annihilation. To destroy the figure must be increased.

    And yet, they do not shoot at such a range in GPs.

    This is definitely not mixed up with the caliber?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 2 November 2013 20: 13
      +2
      And I definitely mixed it up, out of habit I took 152. The 122 mm needs 810
  11. vova1973
    vova1973 3 November 2013 03: 29
    +1
    [quote = Lopatov] And I definitely mixed it up, out of habit I took 152. The 122 mm needs 810 [/ q
    In my opinion, such a cost to the company stronghold, although I will not argue.
  12. rpek32
    rpek32 3 November 2013 20: 40
    +1
    Few! between the lines I read "if you want more - google yourself" request