To begin with: to the delight of the tankers, we will state that the tank is still the most really useful and formidable combat vehicle on a land battlefield. It was and is the main percussion instrument, it is also support for the advancing infantry, and so on.
The fact that from the beginning of its combat career in the First World War and to our time, the tank has gone just a huge distance along the evolutionary ladder, no one doubts. However, there are moments that would be worth talking about, because suddenly there was a realization that "everything is somehow wrong."
This is perhaps the second most important component of the tank. Or about the first, it is difficult to say here which is more important: armor or weapons. For a tank works in battle for both, and, again, it is difficult to say which is more important.
If you look closely at how tanks are used today and how they fight, we can say the following: in fact, the development of weapons, if not stopped, then slowed down in full.
Let's see what, as they say, we and our potential are rich in.
Our main weapon since 1970 has been the 2A46 cannon, which has undergone fire and water modifications, that is, variants 2A46M and 2A75. And installed on the T-64A. Then there were T-72, T-80, T-90. And only for the "Armata" and the T-90M developed 2A82, the same caliber 125-mm, which is rather an exception to the rule.
Ask why?
But because with our potential, everything is exactly the same.
The Americans and Germans have been using the 120mm Rheinmetall or Rh120 tank gun not so long, but also quite a long time ago: since 1979. And nothing, the latest versions of "Abrams" and "Leopard-2" operate quite normally with this gun.
The British L30 is younger, since 1989, but in fact it is L11A2, originally from the same late 70s, and I can't even call it a successful one. Yes, the French CN120-26 looks newer, but even it is from the 80s, it just waited a long time for the tank.
But in general, the situation is peculiar: only the French CN120-26 and our 2A82 can be called new at a stretch. With a very big stretch. And over the past 40-50 years, no changes have occurred, even the calibers have remained the same.
Although we had plans to replace it with 152 mm in the 90s of the last century, in response, potential ones planned to change it to 140 mm, but the collapse of the USSR put an end to everything. As a result, the 125 mm remained with us, we just changed the type of gun for the T-14 and T-90M.
In general, the T-14 could well be equipped with a 152-mm cannon, the so-called 2A83, but what can we say about this, if we can count the standard T-14 on our fingers.
So if you need to look for evolution anywhere, it is in shells. This is logical, since in terms of calibers and the guns themselves, the military developers have complete silence, then there is only one hope for shells.
And everything is simple here. All the last 40 years. The main thing is to take a BOPS, an armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectile, disperse it well in the long barrel of a tank gun so that it gains good kinetic energy, and physics will do the rest for you.
The best way to sentence a tank from a long distance. At close range, the RPG-7 and its descendants with a shaped charge are still good, but at long range …
On the far side, the crowbar is still good, against which it is bad in terms of reception. The only question is the material. The Germans have always loved tungsten, the Americans prefer depleted uranium. However, uranium is the lot of those who have their own nuclear energy.
As for our army, we have both tungsten and uranium scrap. But they prefer to shoot uranium only at special ranges. To avoid.
Kinetic energy is known to depend on the speed of the projectile. Speed is achieved by complex work on explosives, cannon and projectile shape. Well, the main shamanism is the core material.
It is known that uranium has a density of 19.05 g / cm3, which is 2.5 times higher than that of steel. Since uranium is heavier, it also gains energy in a larger volume than any other material. In addition, uranium is a very hard material, it is easy for it to pierce any armor made of any material. And since the thermal conductivity of uranium is also very low, and the projectile does not expand from friction, like others, the penetrating ability is higher.
Plus such a useful property as the pyrophoricity of uranium dust, which is formed when a projectile breaks through the armor. This dust easily flares up, adding to the problems for the crew.
Well, the main plus is that uranium is just free raw materials, since in fact it is just waste of nuclear energy.
True, it is conditionally free, because not only is it "slightly" phonetic in terms of radioactivity, it is also poisonous. So working with him is not as easy as we would like. The Germans prefer not to bother.
Tungsten is slightly denser than uranium - 19, 25 g / cm3. Slightly more than 1%. And it also has its own superbonus: a high melting point, 2, 6 times higher than that of uranium.
At the moment of contact with the armor, when huge temperatures act on the core, uranium scrap can partially lose its hardness. There is such a term: "swim" from a high temperature. But tungsten for temperatures …
The disadvantage of tungsten is cost. Advantages - it is somewhat easier to work with it, and the absence of a radioactive background is such a good bonus.
It is clear that in such a situation, the designers of all countries are scammed, as best they can, with BOPS.
By the way, there are quite a few methods. Different plumage, flight stabilizers, armor-piercing caps of different shapes and materials. Although basically everyone has one task: to make the scrap as thin and strong as possible. Plus there is a length limitation dictated by the ammo rack of the tank itself. Plus, automatic loaders (who have them) also require attention from designers. So that you do not have to push the unstuffed. But yes, AZ is picky about the size of the projectile, because the projectile cannot be very long. In short, it must fit in size.
Therefore, the task of inventing a projectile with fundamentally new characteristics for an existing gun is comparable to the development of a new gun, and maybe even more difficult.
Even if we take as an example our main BOPS "Mango", which was created back in the USSR, in the 80s, and which simply cannot be called modern. And nevertheless, this charm, created just for "Abrams", is far from tungsten scrap with the possibility of overclocking up to 2M.
A ballistic fairing, behind which an armor-piercing cap is hidden, behind it is a damper that allows you to turn the projectile (normalize) when hit at an angle, only after all this, there are two cores made of tungsten, nickel and steel alloy in series. The total length of the cores is 420 millimeters, and the thickness is only 18 millimeters, the size of the active part of the entire BOPS is 574 millimeters. And, of course, stabilizing plumage and 3.4 kilograms of additional charge.
When firing from two kilometers, "Mango" ideally penetrates 450 millimeters of homogeneous armor, and at an angle of 60 degrees - 230 millimeters.
The shell was modernized not so long ago, it turned out "Mango-M", or, as it is jokingly called, "Mango-Mango". The total length of the cores increased to 610 mm, armor penetration increased to 560 mm, and at an angle of 60 degrees - 280 mm.
Considering how many Soviet / Russian tanks are rolling around the world, it's not a bad idea with an eye to export. The new "Mango" will easily sew the side of the "Abrams", and those who are in the tower will not have a sweet tooth if the angle is observed. 45 degrees or less - and hello to the towers!
There is also "Lekalo". An interesting shell, with very advanced characteristics on the one hand and with some kind of constant vague problems in production.
ZBM-44 "Lekalo" seemed to have been put into service in the late 90s, but the army never received them in reasonable quantities. All the same tungsten core, armor penetration - 650 millimeters in a straight line and about 320 at an angle of 60 degrees. But some crumbs in terms of release and complete incomprehensibility. Information flashed that the Ministry of Defense had ordered 2,000 of these shells. In fact, it is a BC for fifty tanks. Think about it, useful or not.
Yes, better than Mango, but why so few?
Meanwhile, the M829A2 and M829A3 armor-piercing shells that have already entered service with the US Army boast armor penetration of 740 and 770-800 mm, which is very unpleasant.
And if you believe foreign military experts, then completely new BOPS M829E4 are capable of penetrating up to 850-900 mm of steel equivalent at a distance of 2000-2500 m.
It is clear that battles, as at Prokhorovka, are not provided for by the modern concept of combat, but nevertheless. The practice of using tanks in the Donbass has shown that a duel is quite possible, especially during local skirmishes, which have under them the capture of territories and settlements.
How to answer the tanks "potential" - the question. The greater the range of BOPS, the more chances you have to hit an enemy tank and survive.
Yes, now the thinking ones will say: but what about "Lead"?
Yes, Lead. More precisely, three "Leads".
It's just that "Lead" is already in history, since it was created all in the same 80s of the last century. Tungsten carbide core, 635 millimeters long. Penetration from two kilometers normal to 650 millimeters and 320 at an angle of 60 degrees. Very good for its time. For the 21st century - well, so-so.
But the base turned out to be what was needed and with great potential for revision / modernization. And already in Russia "Lead-1" and "Lead-2" appeared.
Lead-1 with a tungsten core penetrates 700-740 millimeters of homogeneous steel.
"Lead-2" with a tungsten-uranium alloy core penetrates 800-830 millimeters.
In general, you don't even have to think about where to shoot at the hull, because it doesn't matter where - you have to pierce. And with a minimum of good circumstances, the tower will say "I surrender."
Despite the fact that the length of the ammunition is close to the critically inconvenient for domestic AZ, these shells can be fired by all tanks that we have in service: T-72 with all letters after the numbers, T-80 and T-90. By the way, if it is really necessary - and the T-14 can bang with "Lead".
I could not, alas, find information about why "Lead" is not in the series. It seems that the tests were not just successful, but very successfully shot in 2016, and … And the Ministry of Defense orders a little "Lekalo".
Meanwhile, "Lead" is actually the only ammunition that NATO tanks should be afraid of. And all of them, without exception. Even though the T-72B3 will shoot.
Now those in the know will say about the "Vacuum". Say yes. About SuperBOPS, capable of destroying all armored, invented in the world today.
This is actually a crowbar, against which I do not see any admission. You can talk about various remote sensing systems, about equivalents, but scrap, dispersed to God knows how many meters per second, is scrap in Africa as well.
But the creation of this projectile in the 90s also testified to the fact that, creating the "Vacuum", the designers clearly worked "on the table", since it was unrealistic to shove a meter-long ammunition into the existing AZ transporters.
And "Vacuum" would have been in promising developments (and it was there), until the aforementioned 2A82 and 2A82-1M were invented, whose AZ could work with meter-long planters.
On tests "Vacuum-1" confidently pierced 900 millimeters of armor from two kilometers when hitting along the normal. And this is more than serious.
"Abrams" of the latest modifications in the thickest part of the tower has protection equivalent to 900-950 millimeters of homogeneous steel. The Merkava boasts 900mm armor. It's like the most die-hard guys, so what? And the "Vacuum" must take them. Or even if it doesn't, the crew will take a long time to disperse the stars from the helmets.
But, alas, everything breaks down on a piece of tinkering with "Armata". You do not need a tank, and there is no need for "Vacuum". Both.
Although, if the 2A82 is installed in the T-90M, and this is quite possible, the cannon will easily enter, you just need to make something smart with the AZ, then the projectile will receive a residence permit and the right to life.
Shells. Because Vacuum-1 is a good old tungsten alloy, and Vacuum-2, you guessed it, is made of uranium.
And more and more often they began to speak out loud about the "Slate", but to say nothing about it so far, most likely, this is again a promising development for a 152 mm caliber.
Actually, why further muddy the water, we do not have trunks for both "Vacuums" in order to master them. The release of the T-90M and T-1 is so sad in quantitative terms that the bulk of the combat mass was both T-72 and will remain in the next 15-20 years. And they and "Lead" will be for happiness. If it ("Lead") is put on the stream at all.
If you look at the perspective, then it probably does not exist. And the point is not that there is no money or intelligence for the release of new shells. It's about physics again.
You cannot constantly increase the energy of the projectile at the expense of speed. Above the speed of 2 km / s, the core begins to collapse when it collides with the armor without an effective increase in armor penetration. And further experiments with propelling charges become really useless. There will be no development.
Continuing to increase the length / mass of the core is also unlikely to work. A one and a half meter BOPS will require a new tower and a new AZ, since it is impossible to cram it into the old ones. And in the cramped tank interior space with such a durov, you can't turn around if something happens. In case of refusal from AZ as in "Abrams".
Other alloys … Possibly. Other materials too. But these works are not for one decade, as it seems to me.
In general, of course, by and large, while the projectile defeats the armor. And it will do it for some time. But just in our case, a situation is very possible when the rate of development of gunpowder and shells will simply lag behind the rate of development of armor.
And only then, but we will get a new qualitative leap. That is what I wrote about at the beginning of the article. Transition to a new caliber. And there is something to think about, because the monster 2A83 about 152 mm will easily rip anyone's turret.
But that will be a completely different story.
In the meantime, the outlined lag in equipping our tanks with modern BOPS is still, in the language of diplomacy, "causes concern." But this is only for now.
