Military Review

Expert: Information about the new 130-mm gun for the Leopard is more likely to be of political importance, and was distributed as opposed to the Russian T-14 tank

120
Messenger of Mordovia published a comment by military expert Aleksey Khlopotov, who expressed his opinion about the "merged on the Internet" information regarding the development in Germany of a 130-mm gun for tank "Leopard".


Expert: Information about the new 130-mm gun for the Leopard is more likely to be of political importance, and was distributed as opposed to the Russian T-14 tank


The expert said the following:

“Drainage to the Internet of plans, allegedly, began the development of the German company Rheinmetall AG, together with the French, of a new ultra-high-power 130-mm cannon, in my opinion, should be viewed rather as a political step. Russian tank T-14 "Armata" literally threw the whole West into shock. The Western public reasonably raises the question of the need for parity. Therefore, this stuffing solves first of all the problem of calming down citizens.

On the other hand, it should be considered as an attempt to draw Russia into an arms race. Moreover, the attempt is very cautious. The fact is that in the West, several versions of 140 caliber mm guns have long been developed. This was their answer to our work on the creation of powerful tank guns caliber 152 mm, which were conducted from the end of the 70-ies of the last century. The statement about the adoption of the long-finished 140-mm cannon would cause Russia's inevitable response - the resumption of work on tanks with 6-inch artillery. But, taking 130-mm caliber, they somehow delay such a radical solution of the issue. In addition, the development of a new system is a reason to get new budget allocations.



It should be noted that in general this work can end in nothing. The fact is that ensuring the stated high performance even in an enlarged caliber smacks of technical adventure. Nobody has canceled the laws of physics and chemistry - the German designers will have to solve a lot of complex tasks. I would even say "not solved". Therefore, it is likely that funds will be received for this project. Over the course of 5-10 years they will be successfully mastered. And then everyone will quietly cover.

Well, and again ... the Germans blamed Russia for creating their "Armata", their ideas were used. In this case, maybe everything is exactly the opposite. The fact is that tank guns of caliber 130 mm, using unitary ammunition, were developed in the USSR as far back as 1960-70's.

They were not used because of the inconvenience of the layout and the significant amount of necessary rework in the then-existing designs of production tanks, but at the same time, work was being done on promising machines specifically for these 130-mm guns. So, the idea is not new. She simply borrowed from us.

Considering all the above, I think that we still should not rush to take some radical measures. You must wait and watch the progress of our opponents in the field of creating a new gun. If we see progress in their work, then, given the presence of a finished heavy platform, its modularity, and the availability of a sufficiently developed 152-mm tank gun 2А83, we will not be hard to quickly create a new combat vehicle and go forward again ” .


Photos used:
Denis Peredrienko, bmpd.livejournal.com
120 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Wiruz
    Wiruz 17 February 2016 13: 45
    22
    Now they will start everything with calibers, as in a bath, measured. I am sure that the Poles, Turks, and maybe even Ukrainians, will also soon switch to more powerful tank guns. Schak yak y mo *** lei, the current is better laughing
    1. DIMA45R
      DIMA45R 17 February 2016 13: 48
      +4
      "The arms race is not our method," Putin said long ago about asymmetric responses to the West. At the moment, we take quality and not quantity, let them catch up with whoever needs it.
      The United States plans to spend TRILLION $$ on the modernization of the Tomahawks, and this is only to get closer to the characteristics of the Caliber. We breed them ... Money is not enough to catch up.
      1. Boos
        Boos 17 February 2016 14: 04
        11
        Under the USSR, for every ruble spent on the defense industry, the Americans spent three dollars, I do not believe the tales of the ruined economy of the Union. They are written by those who have become the new "masters".
        1. Kars
          Kars 17 February 2016 15: 44
          +8
          By the way, about 130 mm))) how could I forget))))
          IS-7))) the USSR in the 40 created a tank of the 21 of the century)) here the leopard 3 will weigh under 70 the tone and gun 130 mm.
          1. mvg
            mvg 17 February 2016 19: 06
            +3
            Leo already weighs under 70 tons .. And he won’t have 130 mm, since there is a fully functional 140 mm ... You sent me the photos yourself ... And I don’t understand how 130 mm is 50% greater muzzle energy than 120 mm L55 request If the 125 mm T-72 and T-90 (except for the 2A82-M5 in the Armata) are "weaker" .. What are they? Really new explosives were invented, with fundamentally new performance characteristics?
            PS: "Throwing" empty information into the masses ..
      2. Inok10
        Inok10 17 February 2016 14: 08
        +5
        Quote: DIMA45R
        We currently take quality and not quantity, let them catch up with anyone.

        ... that's it ... T-14 is a new platform ... ah, the Germans have a new cannon in the old corps ... if it comes to that ... what's the difference that KAZ shoot down 120 mm BPS or 130 mm ?! ... or, out of holy naivety, do they consider the designer of armor protection and KAZ when developing the concept of protection, did not envisage this action of "probable friends" having their own ready-made 152 mm gun available? ... hi
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 17 February 2016 14: 53
          0
          I didn’t hear that KAZ would shoot down the BPS. Even if this is so, then the flight speed varies from 1200-1400m / s at 100mm (T-12) to 1900m / s at 152mm. And these, as they say, are two big differences ...
        2. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 17 February 2016 14: 53
          0
          I didn’t hear that KAZ would shoot down the BPS. Even if this is so, then the flight speed varies from 1200-1400m / s at 100mm (T-12) to 1900m / s at 152mm. And these, as they say, are two big differences ...
          1. Inok10
            Inok10 17 February 2016 20: 02
            +2
            Quote: Zaurbek
            I didn’t hear that KAZ would shoot down the BPS.

            ... answered below ... hi
        3. Vadim237
          Vadim237 17 February 2016 16: 44
          0
          And this KAZ - which can intercept BOPs on T 14 is generally worth it, that is, the assumption that all these guides on Armata are smoke and aerosol grenades.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 18 February 2016 12: 51
            0
            KAZ acts on the cumulative ammunition, destroying the explosive form in the form of a cone. It is relatively fragile. BPS is a steel rod. For frontal armor, it is enough that he does not hit with solid tip into the armor (so that the arrow deviates), but to the side or backside. I do not know!
          2. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 18 February 2016 12: 51
            0
            KAZ acts on the cumulative ammunition, destroying the explosive form in the form of a cone. It is relatively fragile. BPS is a steel rod. For frontal armor, it is enough that he does not hit with solid tip into the armor (so that the arrow deviates), but to the side or backside. I do not know!
        4. Forest
          Forest 17 February 2016 18: 04
          +1
          KAZ cannot bring down BOPS, too fast and too much kinetic energy.
          1. Inok10
            Inok10 17 February 2016 19: 58
            +2
            Quote: Forest
            KAZ cannot bring down BOPS, too fast and too much kinetic energy.

            ... take the trouble to read for KAZ "Afghanit"
            KAZ "Afganit" was developed in the Kolomna KBM. From open sources of information, only the millimeter-wave range of its radar is known, the near intercept line and the maximum intercept speed of armor-piercing sub-caliber shells - 1700 m / s. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that, in contrast to domestic and foreign predecessors, it is for the first time planned to use protective ammunition with a warhead of the shock core type described in Russian patent RU 2263268 in Afganit.
            ... but, the BPS of the old man "Drozd" with a probability of 70% knew how to eat ... but there was no stability, since the ammunition was used with a directed scattering of fragments .. but even then, either the BPS was torn off the shank, or the BPS was turned to "no the correct "angle of meeting the scrap with the armor ... hi
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 17 February 2016 20: 57
              -1
              Only most likely, Afghanistan remained so with a patent.
              1. Inok10
                Inok10 17 February 2016 21: 05
                +2
                Quote: Vadim237
                Only most likely, Afghanistan remained so with a patent.

                ... rather, these are your fantasies, do not give out what you want, for the real ... get angry ... hi
            2. Forest
              Forest 18 February 2016 09: 11
              0
              Another someone’s fiction. Even the most advanced KAZs are not guaranteed to intercept ATGMs because of speed, Drozd did not have time to shoot down grenades, where is the BOPS, which is also very difficult to damage.
      3. Maksus
        Maksus 17 February 2016 16: 52
        -1
        What quality do we take? The quality of new tanks that are not yet? Or fifth-generation fighters, which aren't there either?

        Under the USSR, for every ruble spent on the defense industry, the Americans spent three dollars, I do not believe the tales of the ruined economy of the Union. They are written by those who have become the new "masters".



        But nothing strange is that ONE of the USSR created after the war T-44, 54, 55, 62, 64, 72, 80 and 90. And plus to this IS-3, 4 and T-10? All this had to be developed and put into series - and this is EXPENSIVE, very EXPENSIVE. Amers at that time had the M46-47-48-60 series - essentially an upgrade of the same, M103 and Abrams. Light tanks specially lowered.

        1. VP
          VP 17 February 2016 18: 23
          0
          What is your suggestion?
          Whimpered, calmed down?
      4. mav1971
        mav1971 17 February 2016 17: 29
        +1
        Quote: DIMA45R
        "The arms race is not our method," Putin said long ago about asymmetric responses to the West. At the moment, we take quality and not quantity, let them catch up with whoever needs it.


        We don’t take anything yet.
        Not in quantity. For there is no quantity of it.
        Neither quality, because quality does not shine either.
        And if you were to think that quality would exceed quantity, it is necessary to have an 500-1000-year gap in technology. Fight on a tank against archers.

        Quote: DIMA45R


        The United States plans to spend TRILLION $$ on the modernization of the Tomahawks, and this is only to get closer to the characteristics of the Caliber. We breed them ... Money is not enough to catch up.


        Where do you get such grass? For you like something not childish ...


        First of all.
        Caliber is a complete analogue of Tomahawk. Late compared to the original on 20-30 years.
        And during these 20 years of backlog, ours didn’t do better.
        The percentage of marriage is the same.
        Missiles also did not reach the targets. Their debris was found in the same Syria.
        Again, what quality superiority are you talking about?
        Amers from 3 to 5 have thousands of finished Tomahawks.
        In Russia, there is no 100 in real life.
        How are you going to make parity?
        Who's catching up with whom?

        And where did you come up with the Trillion figure?
        Why not Ohuliard?
        In the aftermath came up with chtoli? Or dig out of the nose?
        Well, stop the violent fantasy ..

        I apologize to other readers, but there shouldn’t be such frank nonsense at a military forum. This is the level of kindergarten, when children are measured by what they do not have. Well, they still have a brain for children. And therefore they can compare the snake and the hedgehog.
        But a person crawls out on the Internet, with the brain of an 4-year-old child.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 17 February 2016 18: 04
          -2
          Quote: mav1971
          Caliber is a complete analogue of Tomahawk. Late compared to the original on 20-30 years.

          Can the source be?
          Quote: mav1971
          Missiles also did not reach the targets. Their debris was found in the same Syria.

          But didn’t they fly there?
          1. mvg
            mvg 17 February 2016 19: 15
            0
            It's not even a "complete analogue", but definitely not better ... There has already been a "dispute" a couple of times ... Ask Opus and Bennert .. He, along the way, Sistine ... And TTX is in the internet .. I would put on Axes .. 20 years with a dashing Yankees used on business .. And we made the reincarnation of "Pomegranate 3M-10"
            As for the Caliber in Iran (not Syria) ... there are a couple of ambiguous photos on the network. They (calibers) flew there in no hurry ..
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 17 February 2016 19: 52
              +1
              Quote: mvg
              It's not even a "complete analogue", but definitely not better ... There has already been a "dispute" a couple of times ... Ask Opus and Bennert .. He, along the way, Sistine ... And TTX is in the internet .. I would put on Axes .. 20 years with a dashing Yankees used on business .. And we made the reincarnation of "Pomegranate 3M-10"
              As for the Caliber in Iran (not Syria) ... there are a couple of ambiguous photos on the network. They (calibers) flew there in no hurry ..


              Well here, though. differently.
              The fact that the Americans have started thousands already has a great experience.

              The fact that the first Caliber pulled from the Grenades nearly killed the entire Russian arms export is also a fact.
              Few people know that the Indians wanted to return and demand a huge penalty for submarines and ships built by Russia.
              And all due to the fact that during the acceptance firing all 6 anti-ship Caliber could not hit the target ...
              Ours urgently finished them on 2 of the year. Then they spent a bunch of missiles to prove to the Indians.
              And what other carriages did the Indians bargain additionally - HZ.
              But they won’t take a little.
              They got at least one submarine for free. IMHO.
          2. mav1971
            mav1971 17 February 2016 19: 18
            +2
            Quote: Dart2027

            Can the source be?

            Here is a fact for you.

            The first Caliber family rocket contract is 2006 year.
            In 2006, India purchased 28 Club-S cruise missiles from Russia.

            The missile ship Dagestan became the first ship in the Russian Navy armed with the latest Caliber-NK missile system.
            In May 2012 of the year, “Dagestan” for the first time carried out rocket firing at a surface target. After completing the first stage of testing, the ship moved along the inland waterways to the Caspian Sea, where it performed rocket fire at a ground target.
            If you have a head on your shoulders, you can find the sources of this information yourself.

            Quote: Dart2027

            But didn’t they fly there?


            Type of troll or what?
            Well, stupidly troll.
            Several missiles did not reach the targets.
            And this excuse me - not good.
            The goals then remained unaffected.
            Or is it all the same to you?
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 17 February 2016 19: 45
              +1
              I beg your pardon. For some reason, half of the text is missing.

              Quick
              The ground version of the anti-ship missiles based on Caliber - Bal-U (two-module module with Onyx / Yakhont / Bramos). In developing. Accordingly, it is not in service. Those. it really does not exist for the defense of the country.
              The ground version with a tactical missile is prohibited.
              Air option as well. Does not exist. For the defense of the country - no from the word "nothing"

              Now about the Tomahawk.
              Adoption and combat deployment, 1982 roofing felts, 1983 roofing felts year. The thermonuclear version. ground BGM-109G. In 1983-1986 the adoption of armament and placement on ships and boats of marine options.

              You can find this information yourself. Just worth a little strain. At least want to.
              20 years of difference is there?
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 17 February 2016 20: 17
                +1
                Quote: mav1971
                If you have a head on your shoulders, you can find the sources of this information yourself.

                I asked how is it known that it is a complete analogue? The official data, to put it mildly, are incomplete, it’s enough to recall how long it was written everywhere about three hundred kilometers.
                Quote: mav1971
                20 years of difference is there?

                I still do not understand what you want to say. Previously, they had cruise missiles capable of hitting targets over a thousand kilometers, now we have them. What are you unhappy with?
                Quote: mav1971
                Several missiles did not reach the targets.

                Where is it? Everywhere it was written that just everyone flew, even in a foreign press.
                Quote: mav1971
                Ground version of anti-ship missiles based on Caliber - Bal-U

                In fact, the Ball adopted in the 2008 year is in service. What is bal-u?
                Quote: mav1971
                Ground version with tactical missile - banned

                On earth, other complexes - Iskander.
                1. mav1971
                  mav1971 17 February 2016 21: 48
                  +1
                  Quote: Dart2027

                  I asked how is it known that it is a complete analogue? The official data, to put it mildly, are incomplete, it’s enough to recall how long it was written everywhere about three hundred kilometers.


                  "If something looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

                  Enough walks in the masses of information regarding the characteristics, and application patterns, and mass dimensions, and avionics, to understand about the analogue.
                  And the fact that some of the only news about 300km is enough is the problems of the Indians. unable to search and analyze information - evil Pinocchio themselves.


                  Quote: Dart2027

                  I still do not understand what you want to say. Previously, they had cruise missiles capable of hitting targets over a thousand kilometers, now we have them. What are you unhappy with?

                  Not satisfied
                  Unhappy with the quantity available.
                  Do you play football / played?
                  Imagine a match in which players (equal) are individually identical in strength. But in one team there are 2, and in the other 11.
                  What do those with foam at the mouth look like, prove that this couple will now tear apart a team that is fully outfitted in 11 players?
                  Go ..you? Yes!
                  And that is to say the least.
                  These are not patriots.
                  This is it. Go .. you!
                  Hockers.
                  That's the number of these idiots on the forum, and I'm not happy.

                  Quote: Dart2027

                  In fact, the Ball adopted in the 2008 year is in service. What is bal-u?


                  Well, see for yourself. Can I still get a salary for you? :)


                  Quote: Dart2027

                  Quote: mav1971
                  Ground version with tactical missile - banned

                  On earth, other complexes - Iskander.

                  And Iskander here and?
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 18 February 2016 08: 16
                    0
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Walks enough in the masses of information regarding
                    In open sources there is no detailed description of their electronic filling, only some general performance characteristics.
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Unhappy with the quantity available.
                    Amount is acquired, ships are gradually being built and the number of launchers is increasing accordingly.
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Well, see for yourself.
                    I looked. There is a Ball, there is a Bastion, there are their export modifications. I didn’t find anything about any Bal-U.
                    Quote: mav1971
                    And Iskander here and?
                    Well, you were talking about the ban on the ground version with a tactical missile. The land missile system is the OTRK Iskander.
                    1. mav1971
                      mav1971 18 February 2016 12: 11
                      0
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      In open sources there is no detailed description of their electronic filling, only some general performance characteristics.
                      Amount is acquired, ships are gradually being built and the number of launchers is increasing accordingly.
                      I looked. There is a Ball, there is a Bastion, there are their export modifications. I didn’t find anything about any Bal-U.
                      Well, you were talking about the ban on the ground version with a tactical missile. The land missile system is the OTRK Iskander.


                      Do not find? Well, then it’s not there. Thousands of pages of various forums, PDFs, releases over the course of several years are read. Based on this, a conclusion is drawn. Stupidly burned time and skipped many pages, for the sake of 1-2 grains of information. For hours and years.
                      Or do you want someone to do this kind of work and just put it together in one place?
                      If you can not find anything about Bal-U. This is bad.
                      I will give you the first link I found.

                      Quote:
                      “The most promising for the Russian Navy is the Bal-U coastal anti-missile system under development. Presumably, the new complex will use Yakhont and Caliber missiles, and will also be equipped with new target designation means.
                      If the coastal defense system is fully equipped with “Ball-U” complexes, it turns out that all the weapons are represented by operational-tactical systems. Only expensive, high-power supersonic Yakhont anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles with a caliber supersonic stage, which are designed to defeat large targets, will be used. But tactical complexes will be absent as a class. Such a choice can hardly be called optimal both from a military point of view and from an economic one.
                      Even during large-scale hostilities, large enemy ships will not appear in coastal waters, being substituted for a missile strike. The probability of this behavior is close to zero. The near sea blockade is a thing of the past. And it is possible to strike sea-based cruise missiles from a distance exceeding the firing range of the SCRC. Thus, it becomes clear that the invasion of large ships, aimed at defeating which are targeted by the Bal-U SCRC, will be carried out only after the destruction of the coastal defense by aviation precision weapons and cruise missiles.
                      A significant firing range will be reduced due to the difficulty of target designation at a great distance, moreover, all kinds of interference can be expected from the enemy to determine targets. In the worst case, the SCRC will have to rely only on its own radar, whose range is limited by the radio horizon. So all the advantages of long-range missiles will be reduced to almost zero. "

                      Iskander is a short-shooter.
                      Compared to Caliber range.
                      Initially, a completely different system.
                      1. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 18 February 2016 12: 47
                        0
                        They meant by the UR type "Caliber". PU can have both BR and CR in equipment. These are different cars or on the same rocket, you can change, I don't know.
                      2. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 19 February 2016 14: 33
                        0
                        Quote: mav1971
                        I will give you the first link I found.

                        Actually, I indicated the date of adopting the Bal ballistic missile system - this is 2008. Now is 2016, and you are unhappy that there is no next-generation system yet. Do you propose to completely change all the equipment of the RV every 5-6 years? So it is physically impossible. Because it’s not very well written about him because it touched the future.
                        Quote: mav1971
                        Iskander is a short-shooter. Compared to Caliber range.

                        About Caliber they said the same thing - 300 km. I would be very surprised if there was no work on the design of missiles about which there is no information in the official releases.
        2. Maksus
          Maksus 17 February 2016 20: 02
          0
          Bravo! I completely agree.
    2. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 17 February 2016 13: 49
      10
      Quote: Wiruz
      I am sure that the Poles, Turks, and maybe even Ukrainians, will also soon switch to more powerful tank guns.

      Take it higher. They will switch to 600 mm self-propelled mortars. To rrr-times! And the enemy’s tank is annihilated into atoms! laughing
      But in fact it’s funny - the Bundes, not being able to produce a modern tank gun, are trying to intimidate or confuse competitors. Where, I ask you, is the gloomy German technical genius? Reborn as a PR man?
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 17 February 2016 14: 12
        +3
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        Take it higher. They will switch to 600 mm self-propelled mortars.

        No, there will be a reincarnation of this Wunderwaffle ...
        1. Full name
          Full name 17 February 2016 15: 31
          0
          Rather, Wundertwicks. It was not put into service, probably because of a fear that they would be scuffled inside: whose wand was cooler.
      2. Uncle VasyaSayapin
        Uncle VasyaSayapin 17 February 2016 14: 30
        +1
        Khokhlam, tell me. Let them make a tank with a cannon through the barrel of which Point U can be launched. Here will be the change so change.
      3. Full name
        Full name 17 February 2016 15: 26
        0
        Yeah, but in bright with iridescent overflows)))
    3. Orel
      Orel 17 February 2016 13: 50
      +6
      The German-French concern has already begun to create a T-14 response. But sooner than after 10 years you should not wait for an answer. During this time, you can already rearm the army on the T-14. If we don’t run out of money by this time. And if UVZ will work normally, otherwise it will have a shortened week and reductions planned ...
      1. Orel
        Orel 17 February 2016 14: 01
        -21 qualifying.
        I believe that classic tank guns are already the last century ... You can certainly increase the caliber, but it is expensive and unpromising. Interesting work is now underway on the railgun guns. The speed of the projectile and its kinetic energy are orders of magnitude higher than any promising projectile of any caliber. A similar weapon is planned to be put on the destroyer Zumwalt in the USA. If they can master it on the ship, then there is a chance that they will put it on the tank. Then the protection of the tank will be difficult to provide, if at all possible. All the same, a disc that flies at a speed 7 times higher than the speed of sound will definitely be a serious problem for any tank protection system. Active or passive. No difference. If we invent something, then in the direction of fundamentally new tank guns.
        1. aleks 62 next
          aleks 62 next 17 February 2016 14: 06
          17
          .... I believe that classic tank guns are already unpromising ... Interesting work is now being done on railgun guns ....


          ... The power plant and the block of storage Condors will be carried on a trailer for the tank ????? .... belay
          1. Orel
            Orel 17 February 2016 14: 10
            -10 qualifying.
            From ignorance and cheer-patriotism we suffer the most ...

            Railgun tests in the USA.

            A gun with a muzzle energy of 2008 MJ and a muzzle velocity of 10 m / s (2520 km / h) was demonstrated in February 9000. On December 10, 2010, a successful muzzle energy railgun test was conducted at the US Navy's Waterborne Arms Development Center in Dahlgren, Virginia. 33 MJ. The mass of shells used in the tests varied between 2 and 3,2 kg. In February 2012, a prototype industrial railgun from BAE Systems, which was close to the serial model, was delivered to Dahlgren and tested on 32 megajoules. The serial model of this system should have a firing range of up to 180 km, and in the future - up to 400 km; engineers are developing systems for the automatic supply of shells, cooling and power systems. In 2015, it is planned to make the first tests on the ship. By 2020, these guns should go into service with the Zamvolt type destroyers being built in the USA, their modular design and electric transmission were calculated taking into account promising electromagnetic weapons. By 2025, it is planned to achieve muzzle energy of 64 MJ.

            Of course, these are only plans, but the trend is obvious ... You don’t need to throw hats - you need to think about your head;)
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 17 February 2016 14: 30
              13
              Quote: Orel
              Railgun tests in the USA.

              You were asked not about testing on a ship, but about the possibility of placing it in a tank. I don’t know when guns of this type can be put into series, but I’m sure that this will be possible only on large-capacity ships equipped with powerful energy sources and rooms to accommodate the necessary equipment. In the foreseeable future, the tank gun will not fundamentally change.
            2. Fafnir
              Fafnir 17 February 2016 17: 17
              +3
              Sorry, but you didn’t confuse the tank with the cruiser? laughing
            3. Wasiliy1985
              Wasiliy1985 17 February 2016 17: 28
              11
              Dear Orel, I will try to explain some elementary laws of physics from the section "Mechanics", because, judging by your comments, you missed this section at school, or did not study in a Soviet school, where this discipline was given close attention.
              So we have:
              The kinetic energy formula: W = (m * V ^ 2) / 2;
              where W is the kinetic energy, in J;
              m is the mass in kg;
              V is the speed in m / s.

              We look for the T-90 tank at the link https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2-90 the type of tank gun used is 2A46M, then follow the link to the gun: https://ru.wikipedia.org / wiki / 2% D0% 9046

              From the data received on Wikipedia, we get:
              the mass of a sub-caliber projectile (not a charge, or a shot as a whole, namely the projectile - a striking element, and specifically a caliber, as the main one as anti-tank) - 5,67 kg (type ZBM9 / ZBM10);
              The initial velocity of the projectile is 1715 ... 1800 m / s (by the way, already about 5,196 ... 5,45 sound speeds).

              We count according to the above formula and get the muzzle energy of the SERIAL DEVELOPED in the troops, and not only in Russia, TANK: 8,338 ... 9,185 MJ.

              "Tanka, Karl, tanka !!!"
              And not a destroyer with a displacement of more than 10 thousand tons ..

              Humanist you, my dear, do not put noodles on the ears of techies ... "Railgun .. Scam ..."
              1. aleks 62 next
                aleks 62 next 18 February 2016 09: 43
                0
                .... I will try to explain some of the elementary laws of physics, from the section "Mechanics", because, judging by your comments, you missed this section at school, or did not study in the Soviet school, where this discipline was given close attention ... Humanist you, my dear, do not put noodles on the ears of techies ... "Railgun .. Scam ..."

                .... laughing . good
            4. Forest
              Forest 17 February 2016 18: 07
              +2
              And while the gun gobbled up energy a little more than a small city consumes per hour. Will the tank ride with ACS?
          2. soldat74
            soldat74 17 February 2016 15: 30
            +7
            Apparently the dear Oryol has not seen the video of the same name "Yeralash" about a cool watch. lol
          3. Vadim237
            Vadim237 17 February 2016 16: 49
            0
            But you don’t worry about the energy source for the tank railgun - an electric blast generator in the form of a sleeve - this is already being done in Russia.
        2. PSih2097
          PSih2097 17 February 2016 14: 19
          +5
          Quote: Orel
          If they can master it on the ship, then there is a chance that they will put it on the tank.

          to begin with, compare the power of the generators at zoomshoot on any modern tank, it differs not even many times, but by orders of magnitude ... that's when fully autonomous miniature reactors will be available, then there will be gausovka on the tank, but not earlier.
          1. Ami du peuple
            Ami du peuple 17 February 2016 14: 39
            +6
            Quote: PSih2097
            that's when fully autonomous miniature reactors will be available, then there will be gausovka on the tank, but not before.

            Most likely, citizen Orel proposes to power the "railgun tank" by means of a power cable from the nearest stationary electrical substation.
            The radius of the combat use of such armored vehicles will be limited only by the size of the installed drum with cable. And what? Quite laughing
            1. kil 31
              kil 31 17 February 2016 14: 57
              +3
              Quote: Ami du peuple
              Quote: PSih2097
              that's when fully autonomous miniature reactors will be available, then there will be gausovka on the tank, but not before.

              Most likely, citizen Orel proposes to power the "railgun tank" by means of a power cable from the nearest stationary electrical substation.
              The radius of the combat use of such armored vehicles will be limited only by the size of the installed drum with cable. And what? Quite laughing

              There is another problem. You won't be able to step into battle right away, only after unwinding the coil, otherwise the cable to the women will burn out. Oh, and this serious "railgun" device laughing laughing laughing
              1. soldat74
                soldat74 17 February 2016 15: 33
                +2
                And do not forget our supporters, those who like to make money on cables, especially copper ones. bully
            2. Fafnir
              Fafnir 17 February 2016 17: 19
              0
              Yeah, and the battle time is limited to the time of evaporation of liquid nitrogen. Well, a superconducting cable is required. repeat
        3. DIMA45R
          DIMA45R 17 February 2016 14: 26
          0
          Science fiction and progress is certainly good, but to fight with this "last century" in this century ... and the question of price is important.
        4. 33 Watcher
          33 Watcher 17 February 2016 14: 40
          0
          Only the issue of energy supply of these guns has not been resolved. Even for a destroyer it’s hard laughing
      2. Ami du peuple
        Ami du peuple 17 February 2016 14: 27
        +6
        Quote: Orel
        If we don’t run out of money by this time
        Do not worry, do not run out. if they run out, we'll borrow from you, since you are so worried about the defense budget. I hope you do not refuse?
        Quote: Orel
        And if UVZ will work normally, otherwise it will have a shortened week and reductions planned ...
        The shortened working week and holidays, with the preservation of 2/3 salary, were introduced precisely at the carriage production. Workers involved in the production of tanks, these activities are not affected by the word "in any way".
    4. little girl15
      little girl15 17 February 2016 13: 52
      0
      On "Armata" You can put a six-inch model, but on "leopard" what?
    5. BilliBoms09
      BilliBoms09 17 February 2016 13: 55
      +1

      Thus, out of 1095 "paper" ones by 2015, the Bundeswehr possesses about 100 newest tanks of the A7 + modification, another 150 tanks of the modern modification A6 and 245 tanks of the modern modification A5. A total of 495 combat-ready tanks or 45,2% of the list.
      All this is mouse fuss, even if they find money for this gun, there is nothing to equip. The Americans basically will not accept the German gun.
      1. Izotovp
        Izotovp 17 February 2016 15: 19
        0
        Since 1985, a 120-mm smooth-bore gun M256-licensed version of the German gun Rheinmetall Rh-120 has been installed on Abrams.
    6. Kars
      Kars 17 February 2016 13: 55
      +6
      Back in the 90's, they wanted to increase the gauges, but the USSR fell apart.
      It is not clear why 130 mm, although there are many developments on 140 mm, and they tried on a leopard.
      1. kil 31
        kil 31 17 February 2016 15: 20
        0
        Quote: Kars
        Back in the 90's, they wanted to increase the gauges, but the USSR fell apart.
        It is not clear why 130 mm, although there are many developments on 140 mm, and they tried on a leopard.

        The same thought occurred to me. 140 is, and they are going to design 130. It is not clear.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 18 February 2016 12: 59
          0
          in the 90s there were already KR series "X". We didn't have the Glonnas system, and this is one of the important components of the complex. We lagged behind in component base. If there was no collapse, then by 2000 the issue would have been resolved. And then say thank you that the whole country has remained. The main difference now is in the AX variants. He can retarget already in flight or look for a target in a given area (option). Caliber cannot do this yet. But, the main thing here is that the infrastructure has been created, the launch vehicles have been created and there is a unification between missiles in different branches of the military. And adding a new sensor or computer to the "brains" of the CD is a matter of modernization.
        2. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 18 February 2016 12: 59
          0
          in the 90s there were already KR series "X". We didn't have the Glonnas system, and this is one of the important components of the complex. We lagged behind in component base. If there was no collapse, then by 2000 the issue would have been resolved. And then say thank you that the whole country has remained. The main difference now is in the AX variants. He can retarget already in flight or look for a target in a given area (option). Caliber cannot do this yet. But, the main thing here is that the infrastructure has been created, the launch vehicles have been created and there is a unification between missiles in different branches of the military. And adding a new sensor or computer to the "brains" of the CD is a matter of modernization.
    7. Giant thought
      Giant thought 17 February 2016 13: 59
      +2
      Let the Germans first create and present this instrument live, then we will talk about this weapon, otherwise it turns out like a saying: a chicken is in the nest, a testicle is in ... de, and grandmother is already at the market.
    8. cherkas.oe
      cherkas.oe 17 February 2016 14: 01
      +2
      Quote: Wiruz
      Now they will start everything with calibers, as in a bath, measured.

      What kind of bathhouses do you go to, dear, in which they are measured in calibers? I've never been in this before. lol
    9. 33 Watcher
      33 Watcher 17 February 2016 14: 37
      0
      And it will be like with battleships, the first half of the 20 century. 380 mm - not enough, give 430 mm ..! laughing
      1. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 17 February 2016 16: 18
        -1
        Quote: Observer 33
        And it will be like with battleships, the first half of the 20 century. 380 mm - not enough, give 430 mm ..! laughing

        Yes, on battleships then everything is simple. The weight of the gun in relation to the weight of the battleship is negligible. You can make guns of huge calibers with a huge barrel length. All restrictions are related to the fact that gunpowder does not allow an order of magnitude to increase the firing range, how many do not increase the gun.
        In tanks there are continuous restrictions: by weight, by dimensions, by the size of shells, by the length of the barrel of the gun.
        A simple example: there was a self-propelled gun ISU-152 with a caliber 152 mm. The maximum range of the shot is only 13 km., With such a caliber and the corresponding projectile. Just its barrel length was 28 calibres (4.3 m.), Which means that the effectiveness of this caliber was 5 times less than if the barrel length would be 60 calibers, i.e. 9.1 m. Firing range would be 50-60 km. The main limitation is barrel length, as such self-propelled guns could not be transported by rail.
        1. severyanin
          severyanin 18 February 2016 01: 29
          -1
          Quote: Алексей_К
          Yes, on battleships then everything is simple. The weight of the gun in relation to the weight of the battleship is negligible. You can make guns of huge calibers with a huge barrel length.

          Where did such bold statements come from? Concepts like metacentric height, stability tell you something?
          And nothing that on battleships guns were placed in the towers? Their weight must also be taken into account! For comparison, the rotating part of the main battery towers of the battleship Yamato weighed 2500 tons each! The Yamato had three towers - we have 7500 tons of weight with a battleship displacement of about 65-70 thousand tons, totaling about 11% of the displacement, and this is not at all "negligible" by the standards of shipbuilding! hi
    10. avva2012
      avva2012 17 February 2016 14: 50
      0
      Quote: Wiruz Schak yak y mo *** lei, the current is better

      Germans are late. The Poles got ahead of them. Created a dobzhe tank with an empty tower laughing . At VO, there was already an article.
    11. st25310
      st25310 17 February 2016 17: 50
      +1
      A loader physically able to extend a projectile of this caliber?
      1. Kars
        Kars 17 February 2016 17: 53
        +1
        It can. But what will be the rate of fire. But nothing prevents the start of automation.
    12. VP
      VP 17 February 2016 18: 14
      0
      What will they shoot?
      The transition to a new gun caliber is a wild smut and the costs of creating new facilities for the production of ammunition for it.
      Not to mention the cost of saturating the warehouses with a sufficient number of these PSUs.
  2. Primus pilus
    Primus pilus 17 February 2016 13: 47
    +1
    The Hans do not want to lag behind us, they will again make Big Bert.
    1. soldat74
      soldat74 17 February 2016 15: 37
      0
      Or "iron kaput! lol
  3. Dimontius
    Dimontius 17 February 2016 13: 50
    -2
    Germans relax your buttocks. Remember who the tank king built? You can’t surpass the armature!
    1. Boos
      Boos 17 February 2016 13: 55
      +9
      This bike stuck on the first trench, a bad example.
  4. alexdn
    alexdn 17 February 2016 13: 50
    +4
    I would not be surprised if such information came from ukrov: the development of a heavy-duty tank gun 130mm (or maybe immediately 230mm), but the Germans! Is everything really so bad in the German tank kingdom !?))
    1. Boos
      Boos 17 February 2016 14: 09
      +1
      Tipping even 130 mm ingots in the seated position of the loader? And they do not seem to have machines yet? In "Abram" not, but there is a negro on the charge.
      1. PROXOR
        PROXOR 17 February 2016 14: 11
        +1
        On leklerlerka there is an automatic charging. But still. Think about what should be the compartment for storing shells.
    2. soldat74
      soldat74 17 February 2016 15: 40
      +1
      So it's good that they have the Minister of Defense in a skirt. Believe me, we have nothing to do with new "Porsche Ferdinants".
    3. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 17 February 2016 16: 29
      0
      Quote: alexdn
      I would not be surprised if such information came from ukrov: the development of a heavy-duty tank gun 130mm (or maybe immediately 230mm), but the Germans! Is everything really so bad in the German tank kingdom !?))

      Well, that's why the Germans are so immediately and badly? We also have the maximum caliber of 125 mm tanks. Neither 130, nor 140, nor 152 yet. There would be a fully realized 152 mm gun. for the T-14 (Armata), then they would definitely be shown at the parade. Or now, the media would shout about our achievements. There are certain problems with such a caliber on tanks. And the Germans have cannons (howitzers) with a caliber of 155 mm. Once upon a time in the service they are and they shoot in the farther away from our revenge.
      By the way, why is the MSTA-S (152 mm. Caliber) still not reborn into a tank? Ask yourself this question, think about it.
      1. Forest
        Forest 17 February 2016 20: 20
        0
        Remaking self-propelled guns into a tank is still easier to make a tank from scratch. Everything needs to be changed except the chassis.
        1. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 17 February 2016 22: 37
          0
          Quote: Forest
          Remaking self-propelled guns into a tank is still easier to make a tank from scratch. Everything needs to be changed except the chassis.

          Did I say remake? I wrote rebuild, i.e. create a tank with a gun 152 mm. The undercarriage is ready, the gun and turret are mounted on the hull. The only thing left is to make an armored tower with two crew members. I asked about this, what prevented me from rebuilding over so many years, i.e. create a normal tank?
          And the answer is simple. With a modern layout of the fighting compartment tanks with a gun 152 mm. impossible to create. The tower will be even larger than the self-propelled guns MSTA-S, the weight will immediately increase by a dozen tons and the ammunition (shells) must be removed from the tower, the height will also increase. It is necessary to increase engine power, which means that the size of the hull will increase, and the speed of the tank will decrease.
          I would like to add that on the T-14 tank, when 152 mm appears. the cannon, the tower, although not inhabited, will also double in volume, because all the mechanisms of the gun will increase and the size of the projectiles will also increase, and the barrel length should be at least 9 meters, and not 6 meters, as it is now with the 125 mm cannon. This gun will be 2 times heavier than on the T-90 and on the T-72, which means that a more powerful engine will somehow have to be "crammed" into the existing T-14 tank. The longer barrel of the cannon will force the developers to move the turret back, otherwise transportation by rail will be impossible. How all these questions will be solved by the designers is not yet known. That is why there is still no T-14-152 tank. Only promising conversations.
          1. Forest
            Forest 18 February 2016 09: 13
            0
            Now even the appearance of the 125-mm advanced gun has caused an arms race, but what will happen when a particularly powerful gun appears? Russia will not keep up with the rearmament of NATO, even if we start earlier.
    4. Kars
      Kars 17 February 2016 16: 33
      +1
      Quote: alexdn
      I would not be surprised if such information came from ukrov

      Is this news? Ten years already

      140 mm gun "Bagira" (right) and the new Ukrainian 125 mm gun with enhanced ballistic qualities and ammunition for it.
      (made in cooperation with Switzerland)
  5. corporal
    corporal 17 February 2016 13: 51
    +2
    130-152-155-210 ... who is bigger ???

    The Germans are strange. If the opponent can pierce his head with a hammer, why carry a sledgehammer with you? request
    1. Full name
      Full name 17 February 2016 15: 56
      +2
      Point in a helmet of the opponent.
    2. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 17 February 2016 22: 43
      0
      Quote: Corporal
      130-152-155-210 ... who is bigger ???

      The Germans are strange. If the opponent can pierce his head with a hammer, why carry a sledgehammer with you? request

      They are not strange, just larger-caliber guns should shoot further and more powerful shells should pierce thicker armor. And this is a great advantage in battle - the destruction of any target at a greater distance than the enemy.
  6. a-cola
    a-cola 17 February 2016 13: 52
    0
    Answer as it should. It’s easiest to stick a 130 mm gun in the good old Leo, assign the next figure and call it a competitor to Almaty. Moreover, 140 mm apparently already does not fit on this trolley. And it will take years to develop a truly new chassis.
  7. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 17 February 2016 13: 54
    +2
    A terrible thing, 6-inch tank. You just have to get there with BOPS. It doesn't matter where, and as it was said in childhood - "the ears will come off." The energy is simply monstrous. And 130 mm for the "Leopard" is a fake. I have to say something about Russia's obvious outstripping of the famous Germans. A similar flow of bile can be heard about the Russian vaccine against Ebola. Otherwise they will ask - aren't we feeding you too satisfying? How all the same "Armata" to them "The template ripped off"!
  8. Primus pilus
    Primus pilus 17 February 2016 13: 54
    -1
    Wunderwaffe is a wonderful weapon Merkel. smile
  9. Engineer
    Engineer 17 February 2016 13: 54
    +1
    Something this expert does not mention anywhere that work on the 140mm gun in the 80s was closed not because of fear of provoking an increase in the caliber of Soviet guns, but because of too much recoil energy of this gun, because it was not suitable for installation on existing tanks . And they write about this 130mm gun that its energy is about the same. Because either it is a duck or a gun for a completely new tank.
  10. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 17 February 2016 13: 55
    +3
    With 130 mm, the Germans do not know why they were showing off - the gain is small.

    But 140 mm tank guns and a full set of shells for them already
    long time ago (about 10 years) were developed and tested both in Germany and in Israel.

    Moreover, the guns are replaced from 120 to 140 mm without replacing the turret.
    A day at the workshop and go ahead.
    1. corporal
      corporal 17 February 2016 13: 57
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      But 140 mm tank guns and a full set of shells for them already
      long time ago (about 10 years) were developed and tested both in Germany and in Israel.

      Do not tell a short article? hi
      1. Samen
        Samen 17 February 2016 14: 01
        0
        But 140 mm tank guns and a full set of shells for them already
        long time ago (about 10 years) were developed and tested both in Germany and in Israel.

        Interesting ... Where did the firewood come from?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. aleks 62 next
      aleks 62 next 17 February 2016 14: 09
      +5
      .... Moreover, the guns are replaced from 120 to 140 mm without replacing the turret ...

      ... And with return as ???? .... lol
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 17 February 2016 15: 03
        +3
        Recoil - was the main problem. Required to do
        more compact than before (less space), retractable for more powerful
        guns. But somehow managed. Both in Israel and in Germany.
        Here is the Rheinmetall gun:
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 17 February 2016 16: 58
          0
          Yes, they already have a millimeter gun ready for serial production of 140 - only this is the solution to half the problem, the gun needs shells and not a few.
          1. Aleksey_K
            Aleksey_K 17 February 2016 23: 19
            -1
            Quote: Vadim237
            Yes, they already have a millimeter gun ready for serial production of 140 - only this is the solution to half the problem, the gun needs shells and not a few.

            Shells are now being made on automated lines, as tanks arrive, the number of shells increases simply many times. Now they do not make shells, as in 1941 using outdated technologies. And if there are guns for howitzer artillery of such calibers, then they are suitable for tanks, so in this case they already have tens of millions in stock. Another thing is that in Germany they want to switch generally to a single universal shell for tanks. So again, there are no problems with the manufacture of shells, they are still abandoning the old ones.
    4. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 17 February 2016 23: 05
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Moreover, the guns are replaced from 120 to 140 mm without replacing the turret.
      A day at the workshop and go ahead.

      Only under the condition that the tower has enough space for this 140 mm. guns. And the questions are as follows:
      1. The sizes of mechanisms of rollback and rollback are increasing;
      2. The length of the rollback increases;
      3. The length of the barrel of the gun is increasing, which means balancing is changing, which means the length of the breech of the gun, located in the tower, is also increasing.
      4. Ammunition is reduced due to an increase in the diameter and length of shells.
      5. A longer breech of the gun will reduce the elevation and lowering angles of the gun, which will lead to an undesirable decrease from the estimated range of the shot. Otherwise, you have to increase the height of the tower;
      6. The gun and turret of increased dimensions will increase the weight of the tank, and it already reaches 70 tons, and in order to maintain the maneuverability of the tank, you may have to increase engine power, and this will lead to an increase in the hull in the power compartment and the weight of the tank.

      Now, if there is a reserve for all these conditions in Leopard and Chariot, then yes, replacing a gun with 120 mm. on 140 mm. not a big deal.

      However, I note that if your designers are already preparing the next generation of guns, then this is a big plus, because increases the range and power of the shot.
  11. PROXOR
    PROXOR 17 February 2016 14: 05
    -2
    Let's remember the IS-7. In his tower stands an 130mm gun under a unitary naval shell. Only the tank at the same time weighed as many as 100 tons.
    1. 52
      52 17 February 2016 15: 47
      +1
      68 tons weighed.
    2. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 17 February 2016 23: 22
      -1
      Quote: PROXOR
      Let's remember the IS-7. In his tower stands an 130mm gun under a unitary naval shell. Only the tank at the same time weighed as many as 100 tons.

      It is not true, the combat mass of the IS-7 tank is 68 tons, but this is also a lot.
  12. Yak-3P
    Yak-3P 17 February 2016 14: 11
    +2
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Moreover, the guns are replaced from 120 to 140 mm without replacing the turret.
    A day at the workshop and go ahead.

    ... and the mechanics of Formula 1
  13. ARES623
    ARES623 17 February 2016 14: 16
    +1
    A good gun is a tradition-based quality; the Germans have always been strong in internal ballistics. To do this, just go over the samples from WWII to the present. There is no need to panic, you need to take information seriously. The Germans, and with a caliber smaller than ours, sought advantages. Of course, it is better to listen to real producers and analysts, because advertising infa rarely corresponds to the truth.
  14. triglav
    triglav 17 February 2016 14: 20
    0
    We must wait until they get bogged down in the development of a new gun. And we'll see.
    1. alpamys
      alpamys 17 February 2016 14: 38
      +1
      Quote: triglav
      We must wait until they get bogged down in the development of a new gun. And we'll see.

      stuffing it, the Germans so much crap with rearmament, especially tank duels are not planned, ATGM rule.
  15. Dart2027
    Dart2027 17 February 2016 14: 25
    +1
    The tank acts on the front line and it is difficult to obtain additional ammunition for it. I don’t think that it’s only a matter of technical difficulties, it’s more likely that with an increase in caliber the number of shells that he’ll carry will decrease, and if 125-130 mm still go nowhere, then 125-152 mm is a serious difference.
    1. Dimka off
      Dimka off 17 February 2016 20: 40
      0
      Quote: Dart2027
      The tank acts on the front line and it is difficult to obtain additional ammunition for it.

      With a caliber of 152 mm, a guaranteed defeat of the tank is obtained. This fact compensates for the small BC. The battle will end before the ammunition runs out.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 18 February 2016 08: 17
        0
        Quote: Dimka off
        The battle ends before the ammunition runs out

        The battle consists not only of tank duels.
        1. Dimka off
          Dimka off 18 February 2016 20: 01
          0
          Quote: Dart2027
          The battle consists not only of tank duels.

          war is a very unpredictable thing. And so - of course so
  16. Nicola Bari
    Nicola Bari 17 February 2016 14: 28
    0
    Woke up, from the smell of fried heels.
  17. shinobi
    shinobi 17 February 2016 14: 32
    +2
    Well, why the hell do you want to put ru on the tank? At armor-piercing, the caliber of blanks rarely exceeds 55mm. This is for high-explosive and guided missiles, yes, the bigger the cooler. Indeed, it smells more like politics.
    1. just exp
      just exp 17 February 2016 15: 20
      0
      so, there is no difference between 76 and 125 mm armor-piercing:
    2. Forest
      Forest 17 February 2016 20: 22
      0
      There is a big difference - in the weight of gunpowder and a possible increase in pressure in the bore.
  18. From Samara
    From Samara 17 February 2016 14: 53
    0
    Leopard is a good tank. It was necessary to purchase at the time several copies and study ... for experience.
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 17 February 2016 23: 25
      -1
      Quote: From Samara
      Leopard is a good tank. It was necessary to purchase at the time several copies and study ... for experience.

      Most recently on television it was shown that in Russia there is a copy of Abrams, I think that Leopard was also purchased through third parties. Corruption and theft in the West flourish.
  19. Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer 17 February 2016 14: 54
    +1
    They installed 2A82-1M on ARMAT, not just like that! Believe me, in addition to shells, by the way, there are also guided missiles. You should not consider yourself smarter than designers and "customers". They know what they are doing.
  20. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 17 February 2016 15: 01
    0
    At first, in a rage, the Germans threatened to design the "Leopard-3" at all. Now, apparently, they have calmed down a little, confining themselves to a new weapon. While this is PR.

    They did not believe in Armata until they saw it in metal (albeit piece by piece so far).

    Although, in fairness, ours, too, were pleased with statements that it was about to be 152 mm on Armata. This, undoubtedly, is possible and easier than the adversaries to produce a new gun and put it into the old tank, or, moreover, to construct a new one. But so far there is no special meaning in this. And the existing gun is enough to deal with real tanks. But running and competing with paper while in advance is not worth it.
  21. bmv04636
    bmv04636 17 February 2016 15: 02
    +2
    it is written because if necessary then you can put a 152 mm gun, you can have a place and the main gun is also
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 February 2016 17: 00
      0
      It would be better if ours adopted tank ammunition for a volumetric explosion, as the Hindus did.
  22. Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli 17 February 2016 16: 41
    +1
    Regarding the Germans, I would not stick to the thought that the author clung to. If the Germans take up something, they will certainly do it, and will do it in the best way. There are plenty of examples.
    One cannot treat an adversary with arrogance; this approach always has a bad end / bad ending.
  23. Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli 17 February 2016 16: 41
    +1
    Regarding the Germans, I would not stick to the thought that the author clung to. If the Germans take up something, they will certainly do it, and will do it in the best way. There are plenty of examples.
    One cannot treat an adversary with arrogance; this approach always has a bad end / bad ending.
  24. mr.grin19z
    mr.grin19z 17 February 2016 18: 58
    0
    and the sense of the gun if there is no armor, only the head on it can be fought only like Fri. Otherwise, the Khan’s crew on the battlefield, and from the first shot from a 100mm gun