Military Review

British tanks in the 21 century, or What to expect from these islanders. Part of 3

36



120 mm rifled gun L30A1 British tank Challanger 2

LEP Life Extension Program

It is possible that certain elements of the TES (Theater Entry Standard) configuration will be implemented on a larger number of tanks as part of the emerging Challenger 2 LEP program. However, the LEP specification basically means combating obsolescence — in other words, simply maintaining the platform’s capabilities at its current level in order to ensure that the Challenger 2 tank remains in service until its decommissioning date — without any improvement in performance. In general, compared with the original intentions, this program will be very limited in scope.

Nominally, the LEP program remains at the concept stage, moreover, it was officially announced that its assessment stage would not start until the end of 2015, and the main investment decision would not be made until around the 2017 year. With the exception of another urgent operational requirement, it is unlikely that its implementation will begin before the end of this decade. Nevertheless, the planning military structures and representatives of the combat units began to identify their needs and, as a result, a new thermal imaging camera for the gunner operator and / or the commander first appeared at the top of this list.

The British Thermal Imaging Common Module (TICM) II thermal imager is installed in a thermal imaging unit on an instrument mask from 80-s and it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. It also does not provide sufficient resolution and does not meet today's more stringent requirements for the positive identification of targets. There are also similar intentions for a radical upgrade of the electronics in the existing fire control computer, which is a further development of the computer originally developed for the M1A2 tank by Computing Devices Canada (currently part of General Dynamics).

Other immediate and aggressively promoted innovations include improved turret drives, a gun control system, improved battery management, an improved engine air cleaning system, and modified Hydrogas suspension units (already installed on Titan and Trojan engineering vehicles).

However, the progressive increase in the level of reservation affects not only the inertia of the tower and the characteristics of the suspension, but also complicates the steering of the machine itself. Therefore, the wish list includes various options for upgrading or replacing the engine and transmission, reducing the volume in this case theoretically allows for improved cooling and higher output power.

Another wish that inevitably entails more fundamental changes in the Challenger 2 tank is the introduction of a common (standard) architecture for GVA (generic vehicle architecture) vehicles. Ideally, the transition to it should be carried out as early as possible, since this could have a great impact on the approach to the modernization of the fire control system - one of the “measures” that is needed in the shortest possible time. GVA will also provide the necessary foundation for better integration between crew jobs and the future remote-controlled combat module (SDM) and better interaction with an improved external communications system in an armored battle group. (The successor to the Bowman system is being developed as part of the Morpheus program, whose development team is responsible for future communications systems onboard the Scout and Warrior CSP machines, but not the Challenger 2 tank.)

On historical reasons and tradition, questions regarding various aspects of the capabilities of Challenger 2, such as ammunition and protection, are decided on their own lines of financing. In order to establish cooperation, these flows along with the LEP program were “driven” into the framework of the comprehensive Armor MBT 2025 program, which also includes all issues related to the future use of armored units, including training.

The Challenger 2 tank defense system was undergoing constant upgrades, the latest of which was the installation of Dorchester armored modules; in the long term, the protection system will be improved by implementing the Active Integrated Protection System (AIPS) program. Under this program, similar to the US modular active protection system Modular Active Protection System (MAPS) program launched at the end of 2014, the development companies, in cooperation with the British Laboratory of Defense Science and Technology, will perform several stages of technology assessment and demonstration in the next three years. Its goal is to study ways of dealing with “uncomplicated” hand-held grenade launchers, “complex” anti-tank guided missiles and large-caliber tank shells based on technologies of direct destruction of attacking weapons and optical-electronic countermeasures. It is expected that any promising AIPS will be based on a modular and robust architecture and management system based on the promising development of the successful British GVA initiative; a similar approach was adopted in the framework of the British Common Defensive Aids System for the helicopter platforms.

Read more about the operational readiness mechanism of combat units under the Army 2020 program (A-FORM)

According to a Department of Defense document submitted to the Committee on Defense of the House of Commons in 2014, the A-FORM (Army 2020 force operations and readiness mechanism) operations of the armed forces and the readiness mechanism of the Army 2020 doctrine are based on a three-year training cycle for troops. calendar year. The first year is called “Preparation”, the second - “Operational tasks” and the third - “Other tasks”.

All units in the High Availability Force (Reaction Force) and the Adaptable Force will conduct combined-arms combat training at least every three years, although due to their task of participating in hybrid fighting, the High Readiness Force will do this more often. During the first “academic” year, military units consistently go through all levels, starting from individual training and ending with combined arms exercises with the participation of combat forces and equipment. For the High Availability Forces, this is the CT4 level and for the Incomplete Forces Forces - a lower CT3 level (training a company / squadron in the context of a battle group).

The training itself is a combination of combat and virtual activity, in which training on simulators is increasingly used to supplement field training, especially at the level of a military unit. For the High Readiness Forces of armored and mechanized units, combat group training takes place mainly at BATUS base in Canada, while their respective motorized infantry units are at the Salisbury Plain training ground. Incomplete readiness forces are trained on the basis of BATUK in Kenya and Salisbury Plain.

In their year of “Operational Tasks,” the units of the High Readiness Forces are on full alert. However, units are being trained in the field and on simulators as part of the combined-arms tactical training (CAST) and command-staff training (CATT) phases at Worminster. In order to ensure the readiness of the High Readiness Forces, all military units can also take part in exercises abroad.

The “Other Tasks” year lays the foundations necessary for the remaining years of the brigade's training cycle, but the main tasks of its regiments and battalions are to maintain their training in the “Training” year. Therefore, units in the year “Other tasks” are prepared only to the level of CT1, although some of them may conduct higher level training in order to “provide training” to other units. The tasks of “providing training”, as a rule, are to provide a demonstration fighting group for the Center for Ground Combat Operations, as well as to perform the role of a likely adversary in exercises at the BATUS and BATUK bases.

Fire power

In addition to fire control, the promising ammunition for the main armament will undoubtedly contribute to the firepower of the Challenger 2 tank.

Touching on the armor piercing, one of the experts in this field admitted that “mortality is a concern”, although at the unit level, instructors with Iraq’s combat experience claim that the Challenger 2 still has sufficient superiority “against everything we are likely to encounter.” To the question if during the training were conducted familiarization firing with sabotage shells, the officers answered “no more”, and the reason here may be that the initiation of the high-pressure charge of these munitions has a much greater negative effect on the crew of the tank and its compared with practical ammunition.

Armored piercing piercing projectile with a tracer (BOPST) L27A1, belonging to the class of kinetic ammunition, has a core made of depleted uranium; during combat firing, it can only be shot at targets irrigated with water spraying systems that nail radioactive dust to the ground. This ammunition, which received the nickname “shell with feathers” from the soldiers, was developed in the 80 of the last century and entered service in the 1994 year. Since then, he has not passed any improvements and improvements. A spokesman for the army headquarters confirmed that L27A1 remains “legitimate” despite political and environmental attacks (business and idle), which mainly concern the use of depleted uranium. The projectile is intended only for combat use.

There are also sufficient stocks of obsolete ammunition BOOPST L23A1, whose core is made of a tungsten-nickel-copper alloy. L23A1 may be politically more correct, but it (the soldier's nickname “projectile-shoe”) is much less lethal compared to L27A1, since the technology of this projectile is a dozen years older and moreover it was created for firing with a charge of lower pressure than those munitions that are optimized for the L30 high-pressure guns of the Challenger 2 tank.

British tanks in the 21 century, or What to expect from these islanders. Part of 3

Established ammunition tank Challenger 2


The reserve of the British army is preparing for live firing

In order to meet the requirements of Oman (the only foreign buyer Challenger 2), instead of the original L8 charge, taken out of production, the shelf life of which has also expired, the L23A1 qualified charge for LBNTX L18A1 medium charge. The L18A1 charge, currently produced for the L29A1 practical armor-piercing projectile used by the Challenger 2 crew, gives the L23A1 projectile a lower initial speed than the previous L8 charge. As a result, armor-piercing characteristics were even worse than they were 30 years ago.

Other regular ammunition of the Challenger 2 tank are ballistic-related armor-piercing-high-explosive projectile with a crushable head part (HESH) L31A7 and smoke equipped with white phosphorus L34A2 WP Smoke. For shooting, they use the same L3A2 captive charge, as for the other regular ammunition, which gives the initial speed 670 m / s.

Although the design of a universal armor-piercing high-explosive ordnance with a crushable L31A7 HESH head has not changed in essence since the time it was commissioned for the Chieftain in the middle of 60, its high-explosive warhead has a significantly destructive effect on light, medium and heavy armored targets, and sufficient impact on unarmored vehicles and dismounted infantry. It can also be used to destroy bunkers and underground shelters and shelters in brick or concrete walls. Despite its low initial speed compared with auxiliary ammunition used on other tanks (which usually have initial speeds in the 830-1400 range of m / s), this rotation-stabilized projectile is successfully used for targets outside normal combat distances. Crews periodically carry out live firing by this projectile: they make two or three shots at a distance of 6-8 km using the “Long-Range HESH” fire control system (FCS) installation.

According to one of the officers, “what we deploy depends on a set of goals.” For example, in the initial stages of “Telic” operation, the Challenger 2 regiments were supplied with L27Al, L31A7 HESH and L34A2 WP Smoke ammunition. In the subsequent stabilization operations, when the main concern was to minimize indirect losses, the choice of crews was also expanded with practical ammunition. As a rule, a practical high-explosive projectile with collapsible warhead L32A6 was used in Basra to pierce obstacles or walls and, according to one tank commander, for such purposes as “mortar calculations in built-up areas using the three-projectile technique”. The L29A1 practical armor-piercing ammunition could also be used to confuse and disorient such threats as long-range snipers.

"We are in the early stages of developing requirements for promising ammunition that could lead to a new universal high-explosive fragmentation shot for a rifled gun." Most likely, a large part will have a manually set fuse with three modes: with time setting, shock, and with delay. It is unlikely that the Challenger 30 rifled L2 cannon will receive an “intelligent breech” with a built-in fuze programmer. Although something similar has already been added to the 120-mm smoothbore guns of the Abrams M1Al tanks of the US Marine Corps and the German Leopard 2A7 for remote installation of a three-mode fuse of the Rheinmetall DM11 programmable universal fragmentation ammunition.

In the short term, no changes are expected in the auxiliary armament of the Challenger 2 tank, but the installation of the DBMS will allow you to get with it either an 12,7-mm heavy machine gun (this is installed in the UABM on Bulldog machines) or an 40-mm automatic grenade launcher. However, the requirement for placing additional types of ammunition can take up the space currently used for storing 7,62 caliber cartridges. If you are critical, then in order to avoid interfering with the lines of sight of the existing Challenger 2 optics, the DBMS itself must be moved backwards from the charging point to the stern of the tower and it is desirable that some or even all crew members could remotely control them from their seats. This can be done only if the Challenger 2 tank has an electronic architecture that allows for the necessary exchange of video data.

Another potential use of the integrated SDS is to install additional launchers for medium-range and long-range guided missiles, such as the upgraded version of the Javelin anti-tank missile already in service with the British army. This will give the Challenger 2 a similar opportunity that Russian tanks have. From their 125-mm smooth-bore guns, you can launch guided missiles with a range of 5 km AT-8 Songster (9K112 Cobra) and AT-11 Sniper (9M119 series) entered the 70-x and 80-x years of the past.


Tank Regiment Type 56 Challenger 2

The way forward

So, apart from the protection systems and ammunition, any changes in equipment and subsystems not covered by the program for extending the service life of the tank are not funded. However, the “group of the future” at the headquarters of the army, which was entrusted with studying the perspective on the 15-20 years in advance, concluded that the main battle tank (MBT) would remain in service for many years, and certainly later than the current date for the removal of the Challenger 2 tank with weapons scheduled for 2035 year.

In the United States, there is talk of extending the life of Abrams tanks to 2040-2050, and the French and Germans are jointly discussing the possibility of creating a new-generation tank-like machine that will replace the Leclerc and Leopard 2 tanks at about the same time.

The holding of war games as part of the Agile Warrior evaluation project has led this group to conclude that a complete set of platforms will always be needed to combat future probable threats. This kit will require a platform of this type that could provide secure mobility and high-precision fire for the future battlefield.

The only thing that such a platform could have deviations from the configuration of today's tank, so is its size. At the same time, a big breakthrough in active protection is not expected in the near future and therefore it’s impossible to "put" the capabilities of today's tank into a vehicle with 10-20 tons.

“Most of our current systems will still be in service in the next 20 years, and this, accordingly, will require some funding or renewal, or even all at once. The Agile Warrior war games allowed us to identify some areas to which we should pay special attention, ”members of the future group say: In the medium term, the development of the current park will most likely go in the field of electronic architecture and active protection. The group does not expect to see fully unmanned tanks, although the technology of autonomous platforms, nevertheless, quite possibly will become an implementation tool for existing ground combat vehicles, allowing their crews to be removed for false attacks or “demonstrations”, for evacuation, making passages in minefields or targeting bridges.

There is also a possibility that the tanks will have to work in more and more difficult areas, although so far they have preferred to avoid built-up areas as much as possible. For operations in such areas, advanced electronics systems, including GVA and remote control / computer control systems with high-speed data channels, are essential. In addition, if in the past, frontal armor was the basis for protecting the tank, then with the appearance of mines, improvised explosive devices and ammunition for destruction from above, it became necessary to protect the upper hemisphere.

Comment

With one notable exception in the field of protection, the successive steps of effective British Defense Department managers stopped the development of MBT capabilities by 20 years. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are expenses that need to be recalled and corrected, at least with regard to certain characteristics and readiness of those Challenger 2 tanks, which were decided to remain in service until the 2035 year and beyond. The list is potentially long, but, first of all, in order not to become a “digital orphan” among the modernized air and ground platforms with which it is expected to interact (and on which its survival will depend to a greater or lesser degree) external and internal digital channels. It will also need a set of advanced ammunition that will effectively deal with the future set of targets and restore the excellent combat capabilities of the Challenger 2 tank.



Materials used:
www.gov.uk
www.militaryimages.net
otvaga2004.mybb.ru
www.ukdefencejournal.org.uk
www.wikimedia.org
www.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Articles from this series:
British tanks in the 21 century, or What to expect from these islanders. Part of 1
British tanks in the 21 century, or what to expect from these islanders. Part of 2
36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 25 December 2015 06: 51
    +5
    As far as I remember, the rifled barrel has higher wear and tear, and over time, the area of ​​dispersion of shells increases. I wonder why the British do not want to put a regular smooth barrel on their "challenging2"?
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 25 December 2015 10: 18
      +4
      Because its own rifled, and smooth-bore German. This tank appeared only because of a desire to support its manufacturer, and so they would have gone to the Leopards for a long time.
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 25 December 2015 11: 55
        +2
        I would not say so. In the UK, its own tank building school has long been established and this tank is a continuation of the traditions of this school, including in terms of cannon armament and used ammunition. This allows the use of ammunition developed and manufactured for the "Challenger 1" and which have proven themselves well during the Middle East wars. Read more on Wiki https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2. I should note that the English version of Wikipedia on this tank provides more information than the Russian version.
      2. seos
        seos 25 December 2015 15: 55
        +1
        This gun has a separate charge - most likely, like we have a problem in armor penetration due to the length of the projectile.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 26 December 2015 17: 06
          -1
          Quote: seos
          This gun has a separate charge - ...

          This is a cannon with a cartridge loading. That is: a shell separately, gunpowder in cartridges - separately, a capsule - separately. It justifies itself in artillery, but it is not clear from what considerations it is used on the tank.

          Let me remind you where it appeared to put smoothbore guns on tanks.
          When Khrushchev was shown the capabilities of our Rapier anti-tank gun (smooth-bore, 100-mm), they told him that the kinetic energy of its projectile was almost one and a half times greater than the kinetic energy of a 105mm rifled tank gun (installed on T-54, T-55 tanks , and her relative on the Su-100, which in turn leads the pedigree from the ship's gun). Khrushchev fired up this weapon to put on the tank. But since the shell with the sleeve had a length that was not acceptable for loading in a tank, they decided to develop a smooth-bore gun for the tank almost from scratch: the 105mm guns were cut off the rifling and got a 115mm gun, which was later put on the T-62 tank. The world's first tank with a smooth cannon barrel.
          Generally,
          since the most terrible enemy of the tank is the enemy’s tank (in addition to the helicopter with which air defense must fight), the main weapon of the tank is sharpened against it. And the smooth-bore gun corresponds to it: having the highest kinetic energy of the projectile (sub-caliber), the cumulative projectile is much simpler in design (in a rotating projectile the cumulative jet has worse characteristics than in the stabilized plumage).
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 26 December 2015 21: 13
            0
            You’re wrong, the 115 mm gun was the first tank smoothbore gun in the world. And 100mm was rifled. 105 mm gun was a NATO gun before tanks (English L8)
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 26 December 2015 21: 50
              0
              Quote: Zaurbek
              And 100mm was rifled. 105 mm gun was a NATO gun before tanks (English L8)

              Yes, error:
              not 105mm, but 100mm
            2. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 27 December 2015 20: 47
              0
              Quote: Zaurbek
              You’re wrong, the 115 mm gun was the first tank smoothbore gun in the world. And 100mm was rifled.
              ??????
              And what did I write about?
              " ... at 100 mm guns, cuts were cut and a 115 mm gun was received, which was later put on the T-62 tank. The world's first tank with a smooth gun barrel ..."
          2. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 26 December 2015 21: 13
            -1
            You’re wrong, the 115 mm gun was the first tank smoothbore gun in the world. And 100mm was rifled. 105 mm gun was a NATO gun before tanks (English L8)
          3. major124
            major124 27 December 2015 18: 34
            0
            two for the answer
  2. L. A. A.
    L. A. A. 25 December 2015 07: 34
    +2
    Why did the NATO planes destroy many tanks in the Iraq war and how to counter this?
    1. 416D
      416D 25 December 2015 08: 25
      +6
      "Why did NATO planes destroy many tanks in the Iraqi war?"

      Because they neutralized the air defense system of Iraq and were able to penetrate with relative impunity to the operational depth of defense and destroy targets


      "How to resist this?"

      Improve all the same air defense and electronic warfare system. Now in the war, the advantage of the one who won the air
      1. L. A. A.
        L. A. A. 25 December 2015 09: 39
        +1
        Thanks for the answer. Only the development of defense in all areas can be the most effective.
    2. gregor6549
      gregor6549 25 December 2015 11: 57
      0
      In the Iraq war, Saddam’s tanks were destroyed in large numbers not only by aviation, but also by Western Coalition’s tanks and anti-tank missiles.
  3. Lord of Wrath
    Lord of Wrath 25 December 2015 08: 31
    +2
    We would like to invite Abrams leopards to our tank biathlon. At the same time and see what, how much)
    1. Forest
      Forest 25 December 2015 10: 40
      +3
      The Americans forbade their tanks to participate in such competitions. Afraid of information leakage.
    2. My doctor
      My doctor 25 December 2015 14: 08
      +3
      Quote: Lord of Wrath
      We would like to invite Abrams leopards to our tank biathlon. At the same time and see what, how much)

      The Tank Biathlon competition was created taking into account the Russian tactics of using armored forces for which Russian tanks are sharpened. Countries that have "challenge-leopard-abrams" in service have their own views on the conduct of combat and have their own competitions.
  4. lexx2038
    lexx2038 25 December 2015 09: 32
    0
    It seems to me from the Second World War it so happened that the best tanks are Russian and German. The rest are trying to match, but no one else has experience when the survival of the nation depended on the tank in particular.
    1. 416D
      416D 25 December 2015 10: 31
      +6
      "but no one else has experience when the survival of the nation depended on the tank in particular."

      Do not tell. I can cite the Korean War as an example. North and South purposefully exterminated each other while massively using armored vehicles and, accordingly, each side now has its own production of tanks. Southerners succeeded in this.

      The second example is the Arab-Israeli war. True, only Israelis learned lessons from past wars. The line of tanks Merkava confirmation of this.
  5. gameover_65
    gameover_65 25 December 2015 10: 45
    +5
    and what does the panther do in the first squadron, the regiment of changers?
    only in case they meet the T-34, so that there is something to fight back, while the managers dump it.
    1. Volga Cossack
      Volga Cossack 25 December 2015 16: 56
      +1
      fulfills the function - squadron - leader))))) smiled)))) Well, noticing ....... hell would redraw the silhouette)))))
    2. The comment was deleted.
  6. gregor6549
    gregor6549 25 December 2015 14: 49
    +2
    I will add a couple more cents to the above. Speaking about the tanks of the leading Western countries, one must take into account that they have already gained the ability to work in a common data exchange network, which can significantly increase the awareness of the tank crew about the combat situation, timely receive target designations about targets that, for some reason, were not detected or detected by the tank crew can’t be, as well as exchange data on the goals of the tank’s crew visible with the CP, other tanks, aviation artillery, etc. Unfortunately, our tank units are still far from fully operational in the network because work on the battlefield automated control system begun at the beginning of the 70x was put on the shelf at the beginning of the 90x and was resumed only a couple of years ago. And in this area, when technology updates occur every year, or even more often, it is very difficult to compensate for such a break, even with a great desire and adequate funding. Moreover, finances are now singing romances and there is not enough of them all.
    1. 52
      52 25 December 2015 17: 26
      0
      Yes, in this area we are still limping on both legs. But in a real war, satellites and drones, as well as all super-sophisticated communication and navigation means, will be disabled in minutes by interference, EMP and other "goodies." tactics and strategy of use, training of crews and subunits, readiness of all branches of the armed forces to perform assigned tasks. In this situation, the doctrine of using tank forces (not tanks as animals in a vacuum, but tank forces), created in the USSR, seems more preferable than the Western one. Moreover, apart from Israel and Germany, other countries in the west regard tanks as highly protected self-propelled guns or anti-tank guns. Judging by the development of Western vehicles, the concept of application has not changed much.
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 26 December 2015 03: 13
        0
        Yes, interference and EMR are a strong thing, but it's like a double-edged sword. Using EMR against the enemy, you use it against yourself. In addition, since 70x, the development of automation equipment for command and control is taking into account the possibility of using EMR. In particular, the input circuits of automation and communications are designed so that both things in themselves sinter an acceptable level of protection against electromagnetic radiation.
        With interference, too, is not as simple as it is presented to the media. In particular, in parallel with the development of electronic warfare methods and tools, there is a development of methods and means of protection against them. Those. there are no miracles in the development of weapons of war. Something overtakes another at a certain stage, then another overtakes the first, etc.
        The doctrine of the use of tanks is also not a dogma and often changes very quickly if necessary. And this, too, was demonstrated very clearly during the recent Middle Eastern wars where tanks were used to solve a wide variety of problems. From breaking the enemy’s defense and supporting patrols to using them as fixed firing points.
        About biathlon. Games are certainly fascinating but they have nothing to do with reality when tank units do not solve their combat missions independently, but in cooperation with other types and types of troops, while tanks with weaker performance characteristics can achieve victory over stronger ones if using stronger ones balanced with other forces and means. An example is the initial period of the Great Patriotic War.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 26 December 2015 21: 17
          0
          Simple biathlon is an applied sport; all special forces are engaged in it. Why then tank does not help combat training of tankers?
        2. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 26 December 2015 21: 17
          0
          Simple biathlon is an applied sport; all special forces are engaged in it. Why then tank does not help combat training of tankers?
  7. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 25 December 2015 16: 58
    +1
    Quote: 416D
    "but no one else has experience when the survival of the nation depended on the tank in particular."

    Do not tell. I can cite the Korean War as an example. North and South purposefully exterminated each other while massively using armored vehicles and, accordingly, each side now has its own production of tanks. Southerners succeeded in this.

    The second example is the Arab-Israeli war. True, only Israelis learned lessons from past wars. The line of tanks Merkava confirmation of this.
    Merkava is imprisoned only purely under your theater ....... and this is not applicable to us.
    1. Forest
      Forest 26 December 2015 02: 59
      +1
      The Merkava will pull any theater of operations, stories about narrow tracks, the inability to fight in sub-zero temperatures, an outdated suspension are composed from the series "and my crew, during a Desert Storm, knocked out a T-72 with a 10 km uranium shell so that it pierced the tank through and through." But the tank is not much inferior to the specific ground pressure of the tank, many of them have already overtaken in weight.
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 26 December 2015 05: 05
        +1
        I did not read more nonsense! Merkava for your TVD! In the forest-steppe area, he is a complete zero! Would you at least be familiar with the calculations of the Israeli specialists themselves
        1. Forest
          Forest 26 December 2015 11: 36
          0
          I don’t see anything special in the forest-steppes, so that Merkava could not fight.
  8. 52
    52 25 December 2015 17: 13
    +1
    Good cycle of articles, thanks!
  9. Kars
    Kars 25 December 2015 23: 22
    +3
    Add a bit of humor.
    1. 52
      52 25 December 2015 23: 37
      0
      Judging by the situation, the tanker still pays shekels, but not pounds! laughing
  10. Nehist
    Nehist 26 December 2015 05: 07
    +1
    I remember when analyzing the battles in Kuwait, just the manager came out in first place, followed by the t-72, but Abrams was in third place.
  11. k_ply
    k_ply 26 December 2015 13: 14
    +2
    Quote: Great-grandfather of Zeus
    ... the dispersion area increases over time

    With time, for smooth-bore guns, the dispersion area is higher by default (only the plumage gives stabilization to BOPS), i.e. accuracy is lower, with a higher barrel resource, by the way, about the barrel resource, it is about the same for L30A1 (L55) and German Rheinmetall Rh120 / L44, ~ 1500 rds. In general, if we recall the role of rifling, then all modern barrel artillery (incl. Self-propelled guns) is rifled. And the British considered it not so necessary to launch ATGMs through the barrel, with the existence of specialized complexes (ATGMs) and SPU. A 52-shot ammunition shell has at least some value for them (combat autonomy), although with separate loading (we have a separate-case with a machine gun, 42 shots).

    If the relatively low mobility of the Challenger-2 and the specific power of its dv-la (hp / t.), Then it is worth recalling the 780/840-horsepower diesel engines T-72 / -90A at 42-47 tons, this is not the way with a 1000-strong export T-90S. There is a variant of the Challenger modernization, with the 1500-horsepower German MTU MT883 Ka-500 diesel engine and the Renk HSWL-295TM hydromechanical transmission, if it were considered so necessary, it would be modernized.
  12. gameover_65
    gameover_65 26 December 2015 18: 21
    0
    Quote: k_ply
    smoothbore guns have a larger dispersion area by default

    I'm a gunner-operator t-80. I personally, at a distance of 1200m, on the move, interrupted with a practical shell
    bar five on the targets. here you have the accuracy!
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. k_ply
      k_ply 26 December 2015 19: 11
      0
      Yes, even at 2000m, no one talks to you about the wretchedness of the hollow-barrel tank guns, and 2A46 in particular, a modern tank is a large sniper rifle.
  13. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 27 December 2015 12: 17
    -2
    Tanks are now at a crossroads ...
    On impact capabilities of 120-125 mm long uranium OBPS
    (75-85 cm) confidently beat the frontal armor. It seems to increase the caliber is not
    necessary. And for missiles, the caliber 120-125 is clearly not enough. Missile shooting
    through the barrel is effective only with external target designation and laser
    guidance. Like, a tank launches a rocket upwards as much as possible, but leads
    its laser is an UAV or a helicopter.
    And with armor protection - only KAZ can provide decent protection against ATGMs,
    and from long OBPS there is no protection at all.