After the state tests, the IS-122 was sent to a test site near Moscow, where a German tank "Panther" (Pz. Kpfw. V) was fired from its gun from a distance of 1500 m. The first projectile struck the frontal armor of the Panther and, without losing its energy, pierced all the insides, struck it in the stern sheet of the hull, tore it and threw it away for several meters.
The 152mm gun is an artillery piece, not a tank gun. Those generally propell some kind of bomb, not kinetic penetrators. Yes, sometimes they tried to mount it on a more tank like vehicle, but that didn't make much sense either way. Also Джо //Elusive//, no, the IS-122 ammo can't do that, because it also only used high explosive ammo.
right,there is certainly more to a gun than mm. for instance the 1941 t-34 had an l-11 cannon produced in lenningrad that looked like the 1942 on t-34 75 model guns... but it was not aseffective as the later guns, interestingly enough,the l-11 was plenty destructive till about 1943
For the soviets, the rationale for going higher in caliber faster than NATO was based on two doctrinal advantages: First with high muzzle velocity and energy you can get sufficient anti armor capability with brute strength compensating for complexity in design. This way you get AP rounds that are way cheaper and faster to produce compared to NATO ammo. Second and perhaps more importantly is a way bigger punch in HE, which was much more valued by soviets than NATO, since they expected to launch an offensive war, punching through the weaker parts of NATO lines, filled with fortified positions and soft targets but hopefully few to none NATO tanks. Soviet tank doctrine was very much based on the experience of operation bagration during ww2. In comparison, NATO was indeed expecting the soviets to strike first and thats why they´re design philosophy, doctrine and deployment was defensive and more reminicent of the tank destroyer mission. Heck while even today russian tanks pack at least half of they´re ammo with HE-FRAG rounds, the standard 120mm doesn´t even have a HE round in existence! EDIT: BOFORS indeed developed a proper HE round for 120mm but it is only in service with the swedish STRV-122
Rheinmetall also offers the DM11 HE-FRAG-T round, which is currently being used by the German, Danish, Dutch, Spanish & Norwegian army. This is a proper HE round with advanced fuzing, check it out for yourself: th-cam.com/video/0HgTfsA7b6A/w-d-xo.html
well i would say [for western tanks] 155mm is the future, because not only is it ridiculously powerful [it smashes through the armour like a safe smashes through a window] it also can be loaded into SPGS, so if the enemy tank comes through, all you have to do is turn your gun a bit and, boom. fire. but seriously, i would say a 110mm shell fitted with a large 155mm or even 175mm long cartridge would be unwieldly but it would literally scream through the air and through their armour. the faster it goes, the more penetration it has.
I worked with 155mm artillery, those projectiles weight a lot. A fitting physical condition it's a must. And even whit that, most artillery pieces come with some sort of either hydraulic or pneumatic asistance sistem.
Although VBED's might be ok against light vehicles. As soon as you have bigger guns (25mm, 30mm, 120mm ect) with AP capabilities; VBED's get slaughtered
Mike Vincent When terrorists use modern Russian and American ATGMs against tanks from 60's and 70's, what do you expect? They wouldnt be as effective against modern Russian and NATO equipment.
7 ปีที่แล้ว
+ H B The modern ATGMs that Russia has supplied to various terrorist groups like ISIS and Hezbollah have proven quite effective against fairly modern tanks though.
Blah b I said that they wouldn't be as effective against modern tanks as they are against older tanks. Of course modern Russian missiles like RPG-29 Vampire (which is my favorite RPG) or Kornet (which is my favorite ATGM) are effective against modern tanks because they were designed to, still under some circumstances and under particular angle hitting some particular place on armor they wouldnt immediately knock out Abrams or Leopard but it still would probably obliterate T-55 or early T-72.
US, England and German all experimented with telescopic ammunition since the 1960s. They have not found the perfect system yet after 50 years. They sound perfect on paper but they are proving to be an engineering nightmare. Besides, stealth attack drones may be sending tanks the way of the dinosaur.
The evolution capability of the 120mm gun will eventually come to an end due to better armor of future armored vehicles, granted by more powerful engines. This will be the time, when the new caliber will have to be introduced.
3:51. Yes, recoil length is indeed a big problem, because it means that you need larger turret ring diameters. As far as I know, the most important requirements for mounting a larger gun is to have sufficient turret ring diameter (However, you can make larger turret ring diameters without extending the width of your chassis. And this is by inserting a turret ring that extends away from the side side hull of the vehicle. This result looks like a that bowl has been welded unto a tank's hull, and you can see this bowl more pronounced on the T-55, T-62, and post war russian tanks. Since this bowl feature helps in preventing the tank's hull width to increase, it also saves on mass. The M1 abrams also has this bowl feature too, but not to the extend of the soviet cold war/modern era tanks, and mass (you need mass, because that prevents large amounts of momentum being generated by the gun to act too harshly against your chassis, and rock it back, and forth). However, there are ways to remedy this, muzzle breaks, and certain types of suspensions can reduce main gun recoil. In addition to this, there are other MORE EXOTIC TECHNOLOGY THAT VASTLY reduces the recoil. Such exotic technology includes a special type of hydropenumatic recoil mechanism, and a VERY WEIRD high velocity recoilless gun that works similarly to a bazooka, but is much more complicated then that...shit...I already said too much. I won't say anymore about these sekrits
It is the same with the old battleships. Yamato class beat them all with 18 inch guns. But tanks have to drive around, get transported to the battlefield, cross bridges and so. They cannot go up and up and up. Maybe some international agreements should in place?? But again. if even big, expensive tanks can be taken out with a relatively cheap missile, things will regulate itself. I am not an expert, but I think, that the limit is about there under current conditions. Nice day!!! :o)
152mm=Tank destroyer/Artillery 120-130=MBT round 90mm=Scout(air portable scorpion90) :( Rip the Scorpion90 it was a beast.. Filled a capability gap for high mobility high fire Forget Leopard 3. I want Scorpion 2 maybe with the ability to fire fire and forget ATGM's to get over the minimalistic caliber.
I think he means the political implications of how they have been deployed and used such as in Syria and their possible role in shooting down , thankfully politics is outside of the scope of this channel. Perhaps Professional Gopnik is a true *Patriot* and proud of the impressive capabilities of the S-400 versus other long range theatre defence land based SAMs
the germans planned to add a 120mm to their kpz70 and made their own auto loader capable of 6rpm with the 152. (it couldn't use atgms and the 120mm was never equipped to the kpz before it was canceled) While the us opted for a 152 gun with an auto loader capable of 10rpm and the ability to load atmgs.
Yes, as far as I can remember, previously considered the transition to 140-152mm. But now it is not so important. Although under certain conditions it is possible. New unmanned towers may well provide space for 140mm or more, if necessary. This will lead to a decrease in the characteristics in favor of weapons. But modernization of the T-72 is not considered massively, only for foreign customers. T-80 is too small, and T-64 is a museum exhibit. This is economically impractical, and will not be massive because of technical complexity. Rather, 125mm on steroids based on T-72, T-80 and with an unmanned tower like TARIQ Falcon, this makes sense.
Complementary, after viewing) Which will probably get a shell niche behind the tower, with a replaceable load case for loading, both on object 640 Black Eagle. But this is only my opinion. Great video!)
140mm on Abrams is impossible without a radical alteration of the shell and the tower. The return of the cannon will destroy the hull. Either it is necessary to build another tank, but it will not be Abrams.
From the economic point of view, it is again misunderstood. Russia is much less selective than the USSR, it should be understood. And "sanctions" are regarded as an act of war, one of, along with the support of extremism. Which brings us into a dense one to a hot war. It's not an ideology or a policy, it's a pure economy. The division of markets and the right to exploit resources, people's lives are not important ... Russia does not agree with this ... again) The main costs are for development, they are already produced. Just a few people can understand that in the USSR first thoroughly considered the problem from a technical point of view, and only then they considered the costs. What gives the tremendous flexibility of technology. But the economy is skewed. If it is required this will be done, but the question at what cost.
If you mean an electrothermal gun, then in the USSR and russia they never stopped such developments of "impulse" guns) But they still have nowhere to install. This requires excess energy, electric transmission + powerful diesel or turbine. This is the next stage, like it is supposed for T-14.
I agree. Longer and more advanced 120mm and 125mm guns are a smarter option for the time being as opposed to bigger guns. Russia has certainly inherited large stocks of 125mm ammo from the USSR and given that they are not fighting Leopard 2s or other advanced tanks, most of this old ammo is just fine. Even old 3BK12 will turn a Bradley or Boxer into scrap metal, and 3BK29 will defeat any ERA currently mounted on non-MBT vehicles. NATO HEAT rounds will do the same to most APCs/IFVs currently in service. Furthermore longer guns will improve performance on existing KE rounds. Add to this that many nations are looking to downsize or cut tank fleets and bigger guns do not make a ton of sense right now. We will likely see bigger guns sometime in the future since armor development will continue and eventually we will hit the limit of existing guns, but for now, 120/5mm works fine.
that 130mm german you show at the end would be nice on the Eurotank couple that with one of those smooth korean or japanese auto-loaders or french one tho given how governments are cutting defense spending also you bring up a point about tank turrets not being well suited to a bigger gun unless they are made with that future upgrade in mind like the Abrams from 105mm to 120mm
Well, the thing with 152mm guns on Armata is quite complicated. Armata was designed to either use the traditional caliber of 125mm or a 152mm gun. So, an upgrade can be made. Perhaps starting a hybrid familly of tanks(Like the T-34 series, with different options for the 76mm guns, a version with 57mm gun or the late war version of T-34-85), this does not mean a complete overhaul of the new tank fleet, but can be seen as gradual introduction(first produce tanks with 125mm than some with 125mm and 152mm and later produce mainly 152mm version) Now, does Russia need bigger guns? Well, this is the thing. Russia did not plan to introduce the 152mm guns for the now(that's why development is not so rushed yet), but because of the future. They know that the collapse of the USSR put their tank development quite a bit behind NATO progress. The T-14 Armat, in current state, was meant to bridge that gap.But they also know that this is not going to last for long(Most NATO tanks have been around for 20 years, so of course everybody expects them to be either upgraded or replaced). And they know they won't have the budget to develop a completely new tank fast enough to keep up. This means that they are going to need a more powerful gun and a viable platform for it so they do not lag behind when those new tanks come up. And another thing, NATO tanks use depleted uranium shells, which gives them an edge in firepower. To compensate, Russia needs a bigger shell, so a bigger gun. In conclusion, yes they quite need it.
The 152mm gun for the Armata is probably in slow development, but is probably one of the ways the Russian designers are looking at to penetrate the Chobham armour used on the M1A2 (and variants) as well as the Challenger IIs. If improved 125mm munitions can't penetrate the Chobham armour, they may need to go to the 152mm gun. This can also be used to counteract any armour improvements in Nato's tanks (M1, Challenger IIs, and Leopard IIs), or future Nato tank designs (M2?, Challenger III?, Leopard III?) whenever they come out. Also note that any improvements in 125mm munitions will more than likely result in improvements to the 152mm munitions. Granted, not all improvements will apply between the two shells, but some will. I also think that the 152 mm is in slow development because of the barrel wear issue. All the issues you raised about reduced barrel life are valid, and need to be addressed before the 152 mm can be deployed en masse.
Also automated turret which i think all countries should do so. This should eliminate the problems with elevation and depression I think. I'm sure you can design something... Anyway I think tanks in general should also be able to have the ability to choose different amounts of charge so they can be used as artillery as well. Also you can put the turret further back for better stability. Also it doesn't have to be a 152. I think that's a bit too large. I think building a 130mm but designing a tank to go bigger is the way to go. I feel like armor technology isn't keeping up and eventually will be useless with more active defenses taking priority. The Russians say the Armata can tank a hit to the face by an American Abraham's 120mm + DU sabot but I'm not sure how true that is. Would not want to test that theory personally. Also there are now smart shells that are designed to be shot over the top of a tank and uses a shape charge to penetrate the weaker top armor.
I think all types are needed. The small size of the Russian T-Series is good for hit and run attacks and ambushes because of the mobility and speed. They can access or pass through areas Abrams can't, like in forests and even swamps. The ability of T-90 to use several types of ammo and rocket among them is no small thing. The Abrams as larger is better suited for defense and open areas like deserts. Beter optics and GPS gave no chance to Iraq's T-Series during the Desert Storm. The 152 would be needed for assault, to support the smaller ones from behind and in tactics could be invaluable asset. Tanks in the city are often an easy pray and the 152 has no business there.
-T-X-M- yeah, but nothing is total fortress. Abrams has better armor than T-Series with probable exception the Armata. But Armata for me is another class and T-90 will be good team mate for it.
I think that teaming up the T-90 with the T-14 would be sensible in an attack involving the whole front to create a large continuous formation. But in a small battle, I think the best is to leave each tank to serve its purpose.
In 1944, the USSR started the Operation Bagration. The main emphasis of the attack was to create a road through swamps for a tank. With this, the USSR got behind the German lines and destabilized the whole front. In 1945, the USSR started operations in Manjuria. In the eastern part, there was a forest made up of bushes worst than barbwire which could tear up the human body. Japanize army made no defenses there thinking that this forest could not be traversed. So tanks were used to create a road for soldiers and again they got behind the enemy lines destabilizing whole Japanize defenses. The point is that Tiger could never pass through swamps the T-34 was able to and the USSR won one of the most important battles of WWII. While in Manjuria T-34 had enough power, which Japanize tank did not have, to pass through such forest and encircle forces which should slowly retreat to prepared defenses. While plain frontal attack will lead to massive casualties, of which the Soviet army had plenty until they learned how to fight in 1943.
exerpt from wikipedia article on nuclear artillery "152 mm projectile ZBV3 for self-propelled guns 2S19 Msta-S, 2S3 Acacia, 2S5 Giatsint-S, towed gun D-20, 2A36 Giatsint-B, and 2A65 Msta-B. The yield was 1 kiloton, maximum range 17.4 km. The nuclear weapon was designated RFYAC-VNIITF and designed by Academician E. I. Zababakhin in Snezhinsk."
Well the Russians already use autoloaders and don't care about elevation and depression so why not ?. -If they go vs a modern tank operating country they will have better anti armor capabilities. -If they go vs insurgents they will have better HE. -And finally if they don't plan to fight anyone they will at least have a scarier gun :)
Something I have been thinking about for awhile is a lower pressure gun firing a rocket assisted kinetic penetrator. Pros: Smaller, shorter, lighter cannons Cons: Tendency to turn upwind, minimum effective range, ammo cost Solutions: Dual grain solid rocket motor to support firing pressure, FCC that compensates for wind. The biggest drawback is the minimum effective range so this would be best used in a medium tank rather than a MBT that is the tip of the spear.
They put a prototypical 140mm smoothbore on an M1 Abrams, referred to as the "Thumper". It'd be a cool future armament option, but probably won't be necessary.
New composite materials that cope with higher stresses would be the way to go IMO. More energy in a smaller package. Maybe tanks will go the same way as ships and become missile launching platforms with drones enabling longer range situational awareness .. kinda like a mini aircraft carrier on land.
honest that sounds like a good idea, tanks can become mini platforms for drones and missile and remain hidden like a sniper, while still mounting a cannon and machine guns
There are limits to how big a tank's main armament could get, and in this video, you covered most of them affectively. I am also glad you added that mention about bigger, heavier ammos also reduce loading efficiency, whether manual or mechanical; a crew loader would get tired sooner and maneuvering ammos within the turret is already a taxing matter, a bigger, heavier round would only make that even more so. Meanwhile, the strain on autoloader to load such would also cause it to fail sooner. One issue I would like to point out was effective engagement range of MBT main armaments. Tank battles in environment like Southern Germany (where I was stationed at one time) where much of the areas were heavily wooded, a bigger, more powerful cannon could hit further wouldn't matter much; it's more of who sees who first and gets off the first round at about 2km.Granted my E Troop did a major tap dance on the Iraqi in 73 Easting at what was probably maximum effective range, unless we are fighting in 'ideal' tank countries or deserts, I'd take our trusty 120mm , great targeting systems and maneuverability over a bigger gun anytime. Oh, I might like to add an opinion of mine, that acquiring bigger guns in defense spending sure sounded much better for politicians because most civilians might have the mindset of 'the bigger, the better'; defense industries would be able to say to the government, "... hey, see you get a much better deal as you are getting larger and more powerful guns". That sure sounded more convincing to politicians than a better gun of same caliber or better ammos.
The West doesnt really have to upgrade when its a given at this point that the T14s numbers will be limited and Nato already have 10x amount of air power. If the bomb is big enough, it doesnt matter what kind of countermeasures the T14 might have. LoL
Yep, doesn’t matter how good your APS is when the enemy drops a 1 ton bomb on you. They wouldn’t even need an explosive filler if they landed it right on your head
Another big problem is the fact that the Russians don’t focus on Aircraft they focus on anti-aircraft missiles And radar making you Fly through a cloud of missiles to get to your target
Would big guns go the way of Battleships? For missiles? I was thinking about missiles after watching your "Swedish Stridsvagn 103 (Strv 103) S-Tank" vid
+Анатолий Шпалин ИТ-1 isn't a good example, it was too complex for then technology level. Same for US rocket tanks like "Starship" or "Sheridan". All kinds of vehicles armed with guided missile were built since then, and tanks got their 'long hand' - missiles launched trough the barrel. Though missile never became their main weapon and missile-armed vehicles never replaced tanks
Вячеслав Скопюк ИТ-1 is a good example why rockets didn't replace canons on tanks. Also nowadays with smoothbore launcher-canons you can have both, so i don't see a problem here
HI Matsumis I really learning a lot from what you are doing by educating us about weapons, I leave in Namibia and I would like to ask you if you can make some comments about the Casspir fighting vehicles. I Know it might be old now but some of us have so much respect for the vehicle especially in counter insurgency operations.
I think they need to consider doing what small arms have done. Take a 4" or 5" SHELL CASING (preferably a disintegrating case like the German 120mm Casing) but "downsize" the actual round's caliber to around 90mm (with a 70mm to 75mm Sub-Penetrator). The increased velocity the 120mm case gives the smaller (sub-penetrator based) round would allow a flatter trajectory and greater penetration for hardened rounds. The HEAT and HE style rounds would lose some power but could be made more effective with Thermobaric (fuel-air based) or Hyperbaric (reactive metal based) warheads. The velocity would be an issue for barrel wear, but recoil wouldn't increase much. I think this should be investigated by NATO.
Closer to 90mm fired from a 120mm bore. Imagine SHRINKING the CANNON BORE to 90mm and STILL firing an APFSDS (but in 70mm, not 90mm) from that 120mm cartridge. This would greatly increase the round's velocity without increasing the round's weight (actually decreasing it, in fact) or effective recoil (recoil speed will increase but not the distance recoiled). This is one aspect of ammunition (HV small caliber) that may "export" from the US railgun tests. It is possible to increase velocity using certain modern powders and materials used for railgun barrels that will allow smaller calibers to achieve the lethality of the 120mm smoothbore by accelerating smaller caliber projectiles above the perceived 5000 ft per second "threshold limit" of modern tank guns. Imagine your current tank round as a "bottlenecked" cartridge with a normal powder charge but a much smaller projectile.
Blox 117: They are reaching maturity. The biggest problems right now are that you have to cool the emitter (usually with liquid nitrogen) of high output lasers (Megawatt output) and charging them. I saw a proposal for an M1 with a homopolar generator connected to the turbine that charged a capacitor to fire the laser. The turret was removed and the laser, targeting sensors, and MG were installed in a small mount on a rotating scissors-type armature (think of cherry picker type lifts) that could raise the weapons and sensors up from behind terrain features. The two problems with it were a LONG cooling and recharge time and insufficient power to instantly burn through armor. The design I saw is now at least 10 years old. I'm sure they have made improvements by now.
It's funny that most of the issues with increasing the caliber that you note in the beginning of the video don't apply to Russian designs because of the heavy reliance on the autoloader. But anyways, 152mm promises a lot of potential: - 18% more muzzle velocity with 80's tech compared to late 90's. - 80% more HE potential. - 152mm ATGM's, which is a big deal. - Whole new field for later improvements. Downsides are no less daunting: - lack of potential targets outside of all out war(bad guys still use T-55, 62 and early/chinese 72). - development and production of the whole new systems of HE, HEAT, APDSFS. - transition from an established caliber or mixing the two in the arsenal. I guess if the USSR didn't have major economical issues and was still around and we would still be in a state of Cold War, the transition would've happened in the 2000's. But right now it's just not viable.
The Russians have developed a 150mm gun for a tank. They may fit it to the Armata once it is proven up as a new innovation. Overall I don't think they will go for a bigger gun for some time. With there now proven gun fired missiles they have had for decades they may not bother. It gives them long range hard hitting power. Most exported RussianTanks have not been supplied and equipped with these missiles.
There is a different solution to this problem that the US has been working on instead of increasing the caliber, use superior technology to radically increase muzzle velocity, this being the Electro Thermal Chemical (ETC) gun. What it basically does is replace the traditional primer in a shell with a plasma ignition system allowing the propellant charge to burn much hotter and far more evenly, potentially doubling the velocity of a 120mm APDSFS round while keeping shell dimensions the same (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrothermal-chemical_technology for details).
+Jonny+ I was going for the abbreviated explanation, the article covers that more in depth and barrel plus cannon breaches specifically engineered to take the added stresses of higher barrel pressure and increased recoil are taken into account.
Additionally; the more even and cleaner burning of the propellant charge from the ETC mechanism actually results in improved barrel life (and now that I think about it probably a smaller muzzle flash). If such a system actually delivered on its promises (assuming a doubling of muzzle velocity results in at least double the armor penetration) it would render virtually all armor packages the Russians have on the drawing board and even most western ones on MBTs obsolete (also making any projected APS systems infeasible at intercepting the KE rounds), even the Abrams with the latest armor package upgrades would be sorely tested by an ETC gun at ranges of 2000m or less. Though the Abrams can still accommodate several extra tons of armor without problems to compensate, especially after the M1A3 is reducing overall vehicle weight by 2 tons from electronics modernization alone. Russian tanks would be forced to ditch the previous obsession with a 50 ton maximum weight limit to have any hope of survival in the face of ETC tech.
okay, you have your hypersonic ultratech 120 mm gun, who is good for only one thing - kill other tanks in direct sight. And then you send your tanks, armed with such great weapon, against likes of ISIS
+Вячеслав Скопюк+ tanks can be surprisingly flexible weapons platforms when properly deployed. The ETC Cannon would also cut down on barrel wear out, saving on costs and the higher velocity could increase the effective range of other munitions (can you imagine what effect canister rounds would have with double the velocity?), HEAT rounds could hit distant targets more efficiently and the new AMP rounds could even kill modern tanks from the front. If they were made of sturdier materials it could effectively resurrect the APCBC rounds of yesteryear and features advanced multipurpose capabilities; with devastating after armor effects or punch holes in much tougher cover in urban environments to get at anything hiding inside, even in the unlikely situation where reinforced concrete pillboxes were encountered; AMP shells could pulverize these.
Some analyst in the Pentagon has a paper that claims that21st century tank logistics expenses scale by the fifth power of the tank's weight. That's a pretty harsh function. The additional weight of larger guns beyond 140mm is predicted to be prohibitively expensive.
Guns are referred to as "tubes" by the artillery branch. This is an accurate description of how we should think about future tank "guns". In the next generation of tank, the gun/tube launched guided missile will be the primary weapon, not shells. This solves many many problems including recoil forces, barrel wear, weight, sighting accuracy, range, you name it. But the calibre needs to go up to 140mm minimum to gain the best advantage.
Russia doesn't need a bigger gun. What they need is to get rid of the separated two-piece ammunition system if they want more power. It is because of separate ammo, which is why their 125mm gun ammo ended up with less KE than NATO's 120mm ammo.Also, Russia's tank doctrine doesn't exactly rely entirely on the tank for their only AT weapon or infantry support. Surface-surface fires are their best suit, hence they don't need a big gun. All they need is enough firepower to fix a NATO force in place, while the artillery trashes everything in their killbox.
No! In the WW2 russians had no good armor penetration with the 76,2 mm guns. They made a longer 57 mm gun that could penetrate more. Now they want to use a 152 mm gun, with its disadvantages instead of develop something better: a longer gun, with a new breach, whitch can withstand a bigger propellant. Maybe a smaller caliber too, with its advantages: faster reload, lightweight, more ammo. That gun could shoot faster SABOT rounds, but smaller HE(F/SH) and smoke. Ultra high velocity guns with explosive propellant is a step back, but until railguns cant be used in tanks, it is the best choice for tank to tank warfare.
with explosive propellant you have acceleration limits. So you need bigger caliber. tho today you have no engine that is powerfull enough to carry the armor which defeats a 120mm sabot. So, if we need better penetration. It will be gauss with hybrid motor and better bateries
Actually, they temporarily suspend the production of the 57mm gun because was too much powerful that overmatch all early German tanks. It came back in service when Tigers and Panthers become more common.
+ARcanRMX you are mistaken. Production of 57mm guns was stopped because of high percentage of defective gun barrels. Such things were hard to produce for the Soviet industry back then
I stand by the comment I made to a similar video of yours some time ago. Here you hit on most - if not all - of the points I made then. Pity I can't find that comment now. Meh, tanks can't get much bigger without serious drawbacks. Therefore their guns won't need to get any bigger either. Point of fact, the AP round needs only a 25mm bore, so... what's so enticing about a bigger bore? As I see it, everything is based on the High Explosive round. The AP round needs a sabot to fill the rest of the bore's void; this is a waste of propellant, you can use less propellant if less bore needs filling. The "shot" round can be modified to fill the void of the bore; so that doesn't need a bigger bore. So that begs the questions... How important are these bigger HE rounds? Can a longer HE round suffice? You see, if the round and the propellant don't need to be connected, then your options for smaller bores expand. It's all about interior space and maneuverability. The projectiles need to be the size of the bore, but the propellant... doesn't! Therefore, you can stack more projectiles into a tighter space, if they aren't attached to their propellants. You can still have your loader; hell, as a team effort, the gunner can then personally choose the projectile he wants to use (that way he'll always know how much of what he has), while the loader concerns himself with ejecting and loading brass. Hell, does the propellant even need brass? Can't the loader just slap a primer on the end before closing the breech? Things that make you go hmmm...
For a sabot round; the bigger bore allows for more propellant to put it down range faster. Physically the bigger barrel allows for more propellant in the charge. More propellant of course means more velocity; providing you have a barrel length to accelerate it.
+Crag_r I fail to see how propellant requires a bigger bore... conflictresearchgroupintl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Bullet-Caliber-comparisom-chart.jpg
Clint Carpentier Those are nice small arms. But once you get to the size of tank guns it becomes a little harder to man handle and create equipment for vastly different ammo. After all; for a tank these days most of it is 2 part anyway.
I've heard a lot of folks talk about the equipping tanks with larger bore guns, the idea being that guns of larger bore are more effective than guns with smaller bores. This ignores the mechanics of how tank guns operate. Lets assume the T-14 is equipped with a 152mm gun (as many fan boys say it will be). The larger bore will have a negative effect on gun performance with APDS rounds because the larger bore requires a larger (and heavier) sabot. The larger diameter of the sabot means more bearing surface resulting in increased friction and lower velocity for the same amount of propellant. If we look at HEAT rounds, HEAT's penetration tends to be correlated (I don't know if its linear or not) with the diameter of the warhead, so there should be some improvement with a larger round. However, a larger round is heavier and will result in a more arced trajectory, making penetration at range difficult. Also, most modern armors are optimized against HEAT, so its a question if the increased effectiveness of the round offsets the increased effectiveness of modern armor. Given that modern ATGM's have a hard time penetrating frontal arc armor and they are not limited in diameter by the bore of a gun, I'd say most likely not. Many of you will point out the German 140mm gun as evidence of the virtues of an increased bore. However, the bore isn't what makes the German 140mm gun interesting. The advantage of the German 140mm gun isn't in the bore, its in the case, which looks to have about 50% more internal volume than the 120mm case. With increased internal case volume, you can load more powder for higher muzzle velocities. In this context, the increased bore is to offset wear on the chamber and barrel throat caused by that much powder being burned. However, there are no free lunches in tanks. A round that much larger than the 120mm is going to cut into ammo capacity and create problems with ammo handling in the confines of a turret. The only way around the problem is a major turret redesign with increased internal volume for the rounds and an autoloader. Probably why the German's dropped the idea in favor of the L55 gun.
"Do Russian tanks need bigger guns?" - I'd say no too lol. 125mm is already bigger than NATO's 120mm, has enough good ammo stocks, and gun performance like accuracy and effect against armour (assuming the current T-72/T-90 2A46 - then the 2A82 for T-14/T-90AM), and has powerful HE round and ATGM launching options. Ammo stocks is also an interesting point for there are special rounds (some DU) kept in EMERGENCY RESERVE (for 'Black Days') but the current rounds are deemed still sufficient against armoured targets, so before even upgrading the gun, there is an ammo change option to increase performance. With regards to 152mm (6in) and Armata; Armata offers a never realised before (on this scale) opportunity for modularity and upgrades combined with the new doctrine of digitised net-centric warfare. I think the T-14 will be using the 125mm 2A82, but the Russian MoD will invest in the infrastructure and design of the 152mm for some models (any kept in service will probably be with the 4th Gds Tank Div as part of the main counter force to NATO - 1st Red Banner Gds Tank Army), so IF the need arises, the tanks can be retrofitted quickly, easily and cost-effectively. This has already happened with older tank models to an extent; most T-90s are in the Western Military District and most of the older T-72s and T-80s that are yet to be modernised or phased out are in the Central and Far-East Mil Districts where the threat is lower and the circumstances are different (terrain, VAST spaces that one can sacrifice in strategic withdrawal etc.) The other issue here is that in order for a tank to be mobile, it can't really (with today's tech) be all over resistant and make obsolete the 120/125mm guns. In the past we saw the Tiger make the 75mm somewhat redundant in tank warfare with additional armour, hence the USSR's 85mm T-34s and 122mm IS-2s, but to make a tank that would REALLY need a 140mm/152mm to counter it, either it'd need a new breakthrough in technology or it's be so big and cumbersome that it would be easy to counter via Air power or be so immobile that it is a liability to operate strategically.
Great video as always. Agreed, for as long as we/they can get by with existing calibers it makes sense to do so. Improvements in ammo and possible increase in barrel length will help. However there may come a time were armour/APS/ERA etc makes current calibers ineffective, at least at long range. When that happens a increase of caliber may be required. I can imagine a tank force having a small number of upgunned tanks, similar to the firefly, which would be saved for engaging the most heavily armoured enemies, and for engaging targets at very long range. This should provide a good compromise between increased performance whilst reducing the economic and logistical burden. I have heard the Russians are considering doing this by equipping a few of their T-14 with the gun from their new SPG you reviewed a while back.
I would say that yes, we need bigger guns, modern armor packages on both sides of iron curtain are getting more and more effective so why not just slam a big 152 mm gun on USSR tanks (Armata's turret wouldn't be a problem) and 140 mm on allies tanks. Of course there is no way to just put it on old tanks like T-72 or T-90, just check their interior now, with 125 mm, it is more cramped than gym on 2nd day of January, so only making these tanks drones would solve this, but it is absolutely idiotic idea. Still, what's the disadvantage? Modern aiming systems are pretty effective (except if you drive Ariete) so you wont have to worry that much about smaller amount of shells you can carry as you will be able to knock out pretty much everything enemy can throw at you withh the first shot from your mini death star, you can also shoot bigger ATGM's, the size of Kornet for example as it is 152 mm and if it gets old in 50 years, just make it longer and that's all. So why not?
Angelo Agriam well, there are still some issues with that, mostly because of the size. Railguns require a lot of energy to fire, and it is needed to place the batteries and something to recharge them all inside the tank. For now, ship based railguns seem the only viable option
Biggest problem with the ammunition is that gunpowder has a maximum velocity and we are pretty much close to that velocity. Increasing caliber would give change to use heavier projectiles and they would pen more. One solution to the problem is railguns, but you would need to have one Chernobyl built in your tank to power it. Second option is to not use burning gunpowder gasses to propel the projectiles out of barrel. IE. Light Gas Cannon. Such systems are capable of forcing liquid hydrogen into a metallic state. (I'm not joking here, you can google that, if you want :3) It is actually pretty simple in theory. You just squeeze the gas in a ultra high pressure and release it. At least one AF base somewhere in the USA has one of these, but it is a bit heavy. Breach of that thing weighs like a one metric ton. (That thing can shoot 84mm diameter projectiles at 7.5km/s, yes 7500m/s. Abrams does under 2k The bigger one has 200mm of diameter and can do 4.5km/s) I don't know the weight of such projectiles, but even 1kg object flying 4.5km/s will do a lot of damage. (5kg projectile flying 7,5 km/s would have same amount of energy as 0.03 tons of TNT. Abrams shooting M829A2 (9kg?) shell at 1650m/s would have around 0.003 tons of TNT equivalent.) You just have to redesign the cannon breach, loading systems and pretty much anything related to the gun. Barrel life is also a bit problematic with higher pressures. But yeah. I'd say it is possible to make 120mm cannon that shoot projectiles at 5km/s, but you would have to change barrel probably everytime you expend all your ammunition in the tank. And now when I'm thinking of this, you probably have to cover your projectiles with ceramic tiles, because they would melt from the friction at that high speeds. But yeah, the cheapest solution; Just built shitloads of tanks with older tech, that has higher reliability. If enemy has five ultra high tech tanks, they can't win if enemy has 20 second grade tanks.
More velocity is a better first step before going up in caliber. Higher pressure smooth bores with a long barrel should be sufficient, even with tungsten penetrators. This preserves ammo handling and quantity while often meeting penetration requirements.
+Valhalla. Ehhh, no, that would not solve anything. Because the "only" target that would maybe need over 120mm would be the T14. Which I would assume has decent tech to deal with sub sonic incoming missiles at long range (early warning, not engagement of the missile). The Russians had missile ammo for their T72s to counter the max range of the Abrams cannon, but that was before so current day countermeasures was a thing.
Lobos222 that just shows why improvements to missiles is so important. Hardening them to electronic countermeasures, making them more agile and faster.
Cathexis256 I know that there are missiles already. Just like guns have existed for hundreds of years yet we continue to redevelop and improve them. Why not do the same with tank fired missiles?
The energy of the round at the muzzle depends on the gun barrel length as much as it does the caliber. if you've ever been around a modern tanks gun firing, you'd have noticed a tremendous boom but also a gigantic muzzle flash. All that flash is powder that hasn't burnt up fully inside the barrel and transferred it's chemical energy into the rounds kinetic energy. (technically, it's still imparting some energy, but let's not split hairs...) The germans actually tested this and noticed that the 125mm l55 gun worked pretty much just as well as the 140mm prototype. Another point of contention is space for ammunition. The larger the round, the more storage space you need for it inside the tank, which as we all know is at a premium. So either you need to build a much bulkier tank or you have to lose 10 rounds of capacity (if you are lucky). In addition, one has to wonder what type of round would benefit from the increased caliber. APFSDS are subcaliber rounds as is and their effectiveness is no derived from caliber size. Indeed, they would gain the most from a longer barrel than a larger caliber. HEAT and HE-Frag rounds would definitely benefit from a larger caliber, seeing as that would mean more explosive charge, but there really is no target out there that a 140mm or 152mm HEAT round could kill that a 120mm or 125mm can't and the same is roughly true for the HE-Frag.
A 152 mm round is around 80% larger than a 125, and that would greatly reduce the amount of ammunition carried to about 24-30 in existing tanks. As it happened with the IS-2, it could carry only 28 rounds in stead of 60 (T-34-85) or 76-77 (T-34-76).
why the hell build a bigger gun when all you need is penetration, besides where tanks go some guy with an anti-tank missile will just blow your oversized slow firing ego gun to little pieces of propaganda.
Have you heard of the Silver Bullet? the M829A1 shell. The Leopard is able to fire the LAHAT missile. and another thing. Tanks like the Leopard and the Abrams are stil very powerful thanks to their latest technology. I think bigger guns are a nessecery thing. But the exact size will be determed by NATO
actually i think, not in near future, but one day we will see a tank whit some kind of rail-gun.... if a ship can have it ..... why not a tank ( i understand its hard to do it ) but one day i think it will be a thing, and also, i think we dont need bigger guns, but better rounds, your platform can be as good as u can but if u are shooting potatos the foe will laugh at you. cheeryo mats good video as always :D !
Just one question. Could we have something like a "semi autoloading" gun? The machine loads the chemical propellant and the loader gets the actual shell piece loaded, this way the autoloading mechanism doesn't need too much space and we can have non-explosive shell parts stowed in the turret!
An interesting alternative to bigger guns is using a new propellants instead,. For instance the ETC (plasma) suggestion. They say with this propellant the lightweight American 120 mm XM-291 came close to achieving 17 MJ of muzzle energy, which is the lower-end muzzle energy spectrum for a 140 mm gun. And because of its design it will also reduce pressure placed on the barrel in comparison to alternative technologies that offer the same muzzle energy given the fact that it helps spread the propellant's gas much more smoothly during ignition. But the really sweet spot here is that it can be integrated into current gun systems. Al though it would be very interesting to see what kind of a punch this propellant together with a 130 mm gun can deliver.
Different munition. Especially after 1980s or so, NATO started using depleted uranium in their ammo(not just tanks, even the 20mm on Bradley can use it) which gives much more power compared to 'standard' shells.
Restless Apparition It started long ago. The Russians preferred larger cannon on there aircraft. They were very good in this area achieving much higher firing rates even on there guns on ships in high calibre. I don't really know. I suspect it was because they perfected making automatic cannons for there aircraft in WW2 and once they had success and the experience they just stayed with it. Very much like I wonder why the USA keeps building large Aircraft Carrier's in numbers when against a peer enemy they are becoming more and more vulnerable. We all get set in our ways.
To the other side of the argument: How to exploit the weaknesses of the enemy. Here i still steal a volumen from the swedish S103 turretless tank. With wheels you furthermore get rid of the tracks. It can't go everywhere a tank can - close; but not quite. The turret of a MBT is about 20 tons of the 60 - switching to rubber tyres will slim down a couple of tons extra and get rid of friction, so a minor engine will do. All that saving could go into better protection. so we will end up with a combat weight of say 30 tons. A ridged mounted gun will allow an automatic loader that is not too flimsy. It will allow reload to take place through the back door and isolate the ammunition in the bustle which is in fact the last 1-2 meters of the chassis. An armour plate separating the crew from the ammunition should ensure that in the event of a hit ammunition will explode away from the crew - giving them a sporting chance of survival. Incidentally it would eliminate the need for a smokeextractor. The S103 has 105 mm gun like the Leopard 1, but of 62 calibers instead of 52. Or 20% longer tube. That should give the bolt a bit extra speed out of the muzzle. As we have eliminated the tasks that demand upper body strength: Ammunition handling and track repair - we can use girls in the tank. Presumeably some that hates remarks of women drivers - and crush your family saloon under her tanks wheels.
i think that the 120mm gun on the M1A2 is plenty adequate, but that bigger guns may be useful for certain purposes, such as ATGM launchers like on the sheridan.
Remember Conquer? No? Like Chieftain it had a 120mm gun, however unlike Chieftain in had one part brass case ammo. It made the Conq. a huge tank, difficult to operate. Chieftain solved the problem with multi-part ammo, including bag charges.
kyoat Bites Agreed? If your Check The K.E equation ( 1/2 m(mass)v^2( velocity)) so increasing The velocity increases energy WAY More than just adding mass.
Soviet tenks are heppy tenks because they hev no depression
you here???
Lol hahaha
Professional Gopnik LOL
Oh Professional Gopnik always in the comments of videos on Russian things
exactly comrade why am I happy
Russia: 125mm. "Do they need bigger guns"
NATO: 120mm. "Should we go back to the 105mm?"
Lindybeigh: WORLD'S BIGGEST GUN
Why don't we put KV-2 Turret on T14 armata comrade ivan ?
yes
Да!
MN Gaming & Tutorials he was joking bro
MN Gaming & Tutorials of course a kv2 turret is outdated
but the russian bias with it gun is not
You can't just heart every comment-
Matsimus: "That's where you're wrong, kiddo."
ANDROMADA lol
LOL, if he can heart every reply of each comment
EZ solution for their gun problem. Bring back kv-2 boom problem solved
Every German tanker is shaking from the experience that 152mm guns have them with the KV-2
Stronk
I once saw a video of a kv2 vaporizing a whole continent
After the state tests, the IS-122 was sent to a test site near Moscow, where a German tank "Panther" (Pz. Kpfw. V) was fired from its gun from a distance of 1500 m. The first projectile struck the frontal armor of the Panther and, without losing its energy, pierced all the insides, struck it in the stern sheet of the hull, tore it and threw it away for several meters.
Джо //Elusive// fking russian bias, pls nerf
The 152mm gun is an artillery piece, not a tank gun. Those generally propell some kind of bomb, not kinetic penetrators.
Yes, sometimes they tried to mount it on a more tank like vehicle, but that didn't make much sense either way.
Also Джо //Elusive//, no, the IS-122 ammo can't do that, because it also only used high explosive ammo.
Bigger gun more boom boom.
Surely that would be more BOOM! but less boom-boom since they tend to have slower rates of fire.
bigger gun = more boomski
Not allways.The russian d10 100mm gun.was better than the 122 gun on the Is series.
right,there is certainly more to a gun than mm.
for instance the 1941 t-34 had an l-11 cannon produced in lenningrad that looked like the 1942 on t-34 75 model guns... but it was not aseffective as the later guns, interestingly enough,the l-11 was plenty destructive till about 1943
Extremely well put. Brilliant use of linguistics!
Less Takka, More Dakka.
Mandalorian Gaming words to live by
Can you make a separate video on the new Rheinmetall L/51 130mm and your thoughts on it
Ólafur Mikaelsson yes please!
Probably the baby of the next KNDS tank (Germany KMW + French Nexter)
130? didnt they develop 140mm one?
Jebi Se the main one they are looking into replacing the 120 is the 130mm
Jebi Se
No need as the 130mm supposedly will pen 1200-1300mm RHA at 1-2 km.
YES, Because Russia is a big land that Why Russia use many tank
Australia si a big country and we only have 59 tanks in our entire arsenal
jaxative jax lol aussies have no threat.. No threat at all from neighbouring nations
u need ships, not tanks.
u are just like UK, u need a large Sea Fleet, not land forces, except maybe for COMMANDO.
Well that could make sense but Russia has a small sea like black sea
For the soviets, the rationale for going higher in caliber faster than NATO was based on two doctrinal advantages:
First with high muzzle velocity and energy you can get sufficient anti armor capability with brute strength compensating for complexity in design. This way you get AP rounds that are way cheaper and faster to produce compared to NATO ammo.
Second and perhaps more importantly is a way bigger punch in HE, which was much more valued by soviets than NATO, since they expected to launch an offensive war, punching through the weaker parts of NATO lines, filled with fortified positions and soft targets but hopefully few to none NATO tanks. Soviet tank doctrine was very much based on the experience of operation bagration during ww2. In comparison, NATO was indeed expecting the soviets to strike first and thats why they´re design philosophy, doctrine and deployment was defensive and more reminicent of the tank destroyer mission. Heck while even today russian tanks pack at least half of they´re ammo with HE-FRAG rounds, the standard 120mm doesn´t even have a HE round in existence!
EDIT: BOFORS indeed developed a proper HE round for 120mm but it is only in service with the swedish STRV-122
Change your "they're" to "their". No offence meant.
Rheinmetall also offers the DM11 HE-FRAG-T round, which is currently being used by the German, Danish, Dutch, Spanish & Norwegian army. This is a proper HE round with advanced fuzing, check it out for yourself: th-cam.com/video/0HgTfsA7b6A/w-d-xo.html
Da 152mm guns are the future.
of course, you know da wae my brudah!
Agreed, propably. It would allow them to use Kornet ATGM, so that may be one reason for this calibre.
well i would say [for western tanks] 155mm is the future, because not only is it ridiculously powerful [it smashes through the armour like a safe smashes through a window] it also can be loaded into SPGS, so if the enemy tank comes through, all you have to do is turn your gun a bit and, boom. fire.
but seriously, i would say a 110mm shell fitted with a large 155mm or even 175mm long cartridge would be unwieldly but it would literally scream through the air and through their armour. the faster it goes, the more penetration it has.
Cane Blu ugh... 183
@@Wanys123 and 2a83 had 1024mm of penetration with apfsds
I worked with 155mm artillery, those projectiles weight a lot. A fitting physical condition it's a must. And even whit that, most artillery pieces come with some sort of either hydraulic or pneumatic asistance sistem.
better ammunition is the answer.
yup. Sign me up for electrothermal :D
lasers, lasers, LASERS
dkr000theOne actually the thing with long barrel tank guns is that you will get more velocity meaning more kenetic energy
this isnt world of tanks kiddo. heat rounds dont work anymore
I don't play tanker, I was one
When a guy in sandals in the middle of the dessert with a Toyota pick up truck can defeat your MBT, the size of your turret won't matter.
Go try yourself, here's what happens 3:11 of video th-cam.com/video/COI2fA7LEdE/w-d-xo.html
Although VBED's might be ok against light vehicles. As soon as you have bigger guns (25mm, 30mm, 120mm ect) with AP capabilities; VBED's get slaughtered
Mike Vincent When terrorists use modern Russian and American ATGMs against tanks from 60's and 70's, what do you expect? They wouldnt be as effective against modern Russian and NATO equipment.
+ H B
The modern ATGMs that Russia has supplied to various terrorist groups like ISIS and Hezbollah have proven quite effective against fairly modern tanks though.
Blah b I said that they wouldn't be as effective against modern tanks as they are against older tanks. Of course modern Russian missiles like RPG-29 Vampire (which is my favorite RPG) or Kornet (which is my favorite ATGM) are effective against modern tanks because they were designed to, still under some circumstances and under particular angle hitting some particular place on armor they wouldnt immediately knock out Abrams or Leopard but it still would probably obliterate T-55 or early T-72.
New ammunition is coming out look for the telescopic tank shell using new propellants .
Ploppy Ploppy that would be interesting.
US, England and German all experimented with telescopic ammunition since the 1960s. They have not found the perfect system yet after 50 years. They sound perfect on paper but they are proving to be an engineering nightmare. Besides, stealth attack drones may be sending tanks the way of the dinosaur.
Tank ammo is telescopic already. Not fully telescoped but the warhead is penetrated deeply into propellant.
@@leminhduc4324 I thought the Ajax 40mm would be using it.
The evolution capability of the 120mm gun will eventually come to an end due to better armor of future armored vehicles, granted by more powerful engines. This will be the time, when the new caliber will have to be introduced.
3:51. Yes, recoil length is indeed a big problem, because it means that you need larger turret ring diameters. As far as I know, the most important requirements for mounting a larger gun is to have sufficient turret ring diameter (However, you can make larger turret ring diameters without extending the width of your chassis. And this is by inserting a turret ring that extends away from the side side hull of the vehicle. This result looks like a that bowl has been welded unto a tank's hull, and you can see this bowl more pronounced on the T-55, T-62, and post war russian tanks. Since this bowl feature helps in preventing the tank's hull width to increase, it also saves on mass. The M1 abrams also has this bowl feature too, but not to the extend of the soviet cold war/modern era tanks, and mass (you need mass, because that prevents large amounts of momentum being generated by the gun to act too harshly against your chassis, and rock it back, and forth). However, there are ways to remedy this, muzzle breaks, and certain types of suspensions can reduce main gun recoil. In addition to this, there are other MORE EXOTIC TECHNOLOGY THAT VASTLY reduces the recoil. Such exotic technology includes a special type of hydropenumatic recoil mechanism, and a VERY WEIRD high velocity recoilless gun that works similarly to a bazooka, but is much more complicated then that...shit...I already said too much. I won't say anymore about these sekrits
Great video as always! Thanks!
It is the same with the old battleships. Yamato class beat them all with 18 inch guns. But tanks have to drive around, get transported to the battlefield, cross bridges and so. They cannot go up and up and up. Maybe some international agreements should in place?? But again. if even big, expensive tanks can be taken out with a relatively cheap missile, things will regulate itself. I am not an expert, but I think, that the limit is about there under current conditions. Nice day!!! :o)
152mm=Tank destroyer/Artillery
120-130=MBT round
90mm=Scout(air portable scorpion90) :(
Rip the Scorpion90 it was a beast..
Filled a capability gap for high mobility high fire
Forget Leopard 3.
I want Scorpion 2 maybe with the ability to fire fire and forget ATGM's to get over the minimalistic caliber.
300mm= big fuckoff gun
You should talk about the very controversial subject of S400 SAMs
Professional Gopnik why controversial?
I think he means the political implications of how they have been deployed and used such as in Syria and their possible role in shooting down , thankfully politics is outside of the scope of this channel.
Perhaps Professional Gopnik is a true *Patriot* and proud of the impressive capabilities of the S-400 versus other long range theatre defence land based SAMs
Because people, especially Russians, think just one of them could shoot down the entire US airforce... even though it's basically not combat tested.
They are not shooting down Nato Aircraft because in that case we will enter a bigger war.
romeo r Oh no, the "battle tested" boy again!
This TH-cam "intro" and "theme", is REALLY, Really, really KOOL 😎😉😎
The American MBT-70 used a 152mm with autoloader back in the 70's. Now we're 2 steps behind the Russians with no autoloader and no crewless turret
I'm not sure about the MBT-70, but the KPZ-70 didn't have an autoloader
the germans planned to add a 120mm to their kpz70 and made their own auto loader capable of 6rpm with the 152. (it couldn't use atgms and the 120mm was never equipped to the kpz before it was canceled) While the us opted for a 152 gun with an auto loader capable of 10rpm and the ability to load atmgs.
mbtkpz is a failed project......
sure it failed. but you can see numerous design features from the mbt/kpz 70 in the m1 abrams and leopard 2.
The t14 armata is a failed project.
Its not my opinion, the russian army cut orders from 2000 units to 100
thank you matsimus , was so good and satisfying report
Yes, as far as I can remember, previously considered the transition to 140-152mm. But now it is not so important. Although under certain conditions it is possible.
New unmanned towers may well provide space for 140mm or more, if necessary. This will lead to a decrease in the characteristics in favor of weapons.
But modernization of the T-72 is not considered massively, only for foreign customers. T-80 is too small, and T-64 is a museum exhibit. This is economically impractical, and will not be massive because of technical complexity.
Rather, 125mm on steroids based on T-72, T-80 and with an unmanned tower like TARIQ Falcon, this makes sense.
Complementary, after viewing)
Which will probably get a shell niche behind the tower, with a replaceable load case for loading, both on object 640 Black Eagle.
But this is only my opinion.
Great video!)
140mm on Abrams is impossible without a radical alteration of the shell and the tower. The return of the cannon will destroy the hull. Either it is necessary to build another tank, but it will not be Abrams.
From the economic point of view, it is again misunderstood. Russia is much less selective than the USSR, it should be understood. And "sanctions" are regarded as an act of war, one of, along with the support of extremism. Which brings us into a dense one to a hot war.
It's not an ideology or a policy, it's a pure economy. The division of markets and the right to exploit resources, people's lives are not important ... Russia does not agree with this ... again)
The main costs are for development, they are already produced. Just a few people can understand that in the USSR first thoroughly considered the problem from a technical point of view, and only then they considered the costs. What gives the tremendous flexibility of technology. But the economy is skewed.
If it is required this will be done, but the question at what cost.
+Джо //Elusive//+ ETC Cannon is a far better solution the US is toying with.
If you mean an electrothermal gun, then in the USSR and russia they never stopped such developments of "impulse" guns) But they still have nowhere to install.
This requires excess energy, electric transmission + powerful diesel or turbine. This is the next stage, like it is supposed for T-14.
In the future....
NATO: so we have a new type of armor that can protect against the 125mm APFSDS, so suck that Russia!
Russia: 200mm gun go brrr
boy those small hatches on that russian tank
And the cramped spaces. I'll stick with western comfort.
Fat ass logic ...
well to be fair we also selected short tankers here
but then again here we also believed the T72 was quite comfy
It doesn't help that the video shows the crew wearing what look to be thick winter jackets.
In Hungary the height limit was 1.75 m, for the T-72 obviously.
I agree. Longer and more advanced 120mm and 125mm guns are a smarter option for the time being as opposed to bigger guns. Russia has certainly inherited large stocks of 125mm ammo from the USSR and given that they are not fighting Leopard 2s or other advanced tanks, most of this old ammo is just fine. Even old 3BK12 will turn a Bradley or Boxer into scrap metal, and 3BK29 will defeat any ERA currently mounted on non-MBT vehicles. NATO HEAT rounds will do the same to most APCs/IFVs currently in service. Furthermore longer guns will improve performance on existing KE rounds. Add to this that many nations are looking to downsize or cut tank fleets and bigger guns do not make a ton of sense right now. We will likely see bigger guns sometime in the future since armor development will continue and eventually we will hit the limit of existing guns, but for now, 120/5mm works fine.
that 130mm german you show at the end would be nice on the Eurotank couple that with one of those smooth korean or japanese auto-loaders or french one tho given how governments are cutting defense spending
also you bring up a point about tank turrets not being well suited to a bigger gun unless they are made with that future upgrade in mind like the Abrams from 105mm to 120mm
Thank you for not using that same horrible text to speech engine that every other channel uses in videos like this! Subbed.
Well, the thing with 152mm guns on Armata is quite complicated. Armata was designed to either use the traditional caliber of 125mm or a 152mm gun. So, an upgrade can be made. Perhaps starting a hybrid familly of tanks(Like the T-34 series, with different options for the 76mm guns, a version with 57mm gun or the late war version of T-34-85), this does not mean a complete overhaul of the new tank fleet, but can be seen as gradual introduction(first produce tanks with 125mm than some with 125mm and 152mm and later produce mainly 152mm version) Now, does Russia need bigger guns? Well, this is the thing. Russia did not plan to introduce the 152mm guns for the now(that's why development is not so rushed yet), but because of the future. They know that the collapse of the USSR put their tank development quite a bit behind NATO progress. The T-14 Armat, in current state, was meant to bridge that gap.But they also know that this is not going to last for long(Most NATO tanks have been around for 20 years, so of course everybody expects them to be either upgraded or replaced). And they know they won't have the budget to develop a completely new tank fast enough to keep up. This means that they are going to need a more powerful gun and a viable platform for it so they do not lag behind when those new tanks come up. And another thing, NATO tanks use depleted uranium shells, which gives them an edge in firepower. To compensate, Russia needs a bigger shell, so a bigger gun. In conclusion, yes they quite need it.
Omega Alpha
Most of NATO favours tungsten over depleted uranium.
The 152mm gun for the Armata is probably in slow development, but is probably one of the ways the Russian designers are looking at to penetrate the Chobham armour used on the M1A2 (and variants) as well as the Challenger IIs. If improved 125mm munitions can't penetrate the Chobham armour, they may need to go to the 152mm gun. This can also be used to counteract any armour improvements in Nato's tanks (M1, Challenger IIs, and Leopard IIs), or future Nato tank designs (M2?, Challenger III?, Leopard III?) whenever they come out.
Also note that any improvements in 125mm munitions will more than likely result in improvements to the 152mm munitions. Granted, not all improvements will apply between the two shells, but some will. I also think that the 152 mm is in slow development because of the barrel wear issue. All the issues you raised about reduced barrel life are valid, and need to be addressed before the 152 mm can be deployed en masse.
@@kostaskritsilas2681 2a83 152mm gun is already developed for object 195, i think it can be used on armata as well
Also automated turret which i think all countries should do so. This should eliminate the problems with elevation and depression I think. I'm sure you can design something... Anyway I think tanks in general should also be able to have the ability to choose different amounts of charge so they can be used as artillery as well.
Also you can put the turret further back for better stability.
Also it doesn't have to be a 152. I think that's a bit too large. I think building a 130mm but designing a tank to go bigger is the way to go. I feel like armor technology isn't keeping up and eventually will be useless with more active defenses taking priority. The Russians say the Armata can tank a hit to the face by an American Abraham's 120mm + DU sabot but I'm not sure how true that is. Would not want to test that theory personally.
Also there are now smart shells that are designed to be shot over the top of a tank and uses a shape charge to penetrate the weaker top armor.
I love watching these videos and reading the comments to see others opinions, it’s like a armor/planes community
I think all types are needed.
The small size of the Russian T-Series is good for hit and run attacks and ambushes because of the mobility and speed. They can access or pass through areas Abrams can't, like in forests and even swamps. The ability of T-90 to use several types of ammo and rocket among them is no small thing.
The Abrams as larger is better suited for defense and open areas like deserts. Beter optics and GPS gave no chance to Iraq's T-Series during the Desert Storm.
The 152 would be needed for assault, to support the smaller ones from behind and in tactics could be invaluable asset. Tanks in the city are often an easy pray and the 152 has no business there.
-T-X-M- yeah, but nothing is total fortress. Abrams has better armor than T-Series with probable exception the Armata. But Armata for me is another class and T-90 will be good team mate for it.
I think that teaming up the T-90 with the T-14 would be sensible in an attack involving the whole front to create a large continuous formation. But in a small battle, I think the best is to leave each tank to serve its purpose.
In 1944, the USSR started the Operation Bagration. The main emphasis of the attack was to create a road through swamps for a tank. With this, the USSR got behind the German lines and destabilized the whole front.
In 1945, the USSR started operations in Manjuria. In the eastern part, there was a forest made up of bushes worst than barbwire which could tear up the human body. Japanize army made no defenses there thinking that this forest could not be traversed. So tanks were used to create a road for soldiers and again they got behind the enemy lines destabilizing whole Japanize defenses.
The point is that Tiger could never pass through swamps the T-34 was able to and the USSR won one of the most important battles of WWII. While in Manjuria T-34 had enough power, which Japanize tank did not have, to pass through such forest and encircle forces which should slowly retreat to prepared defenses. While plain frontal attack will lead to massive casualties, of which the Soviet army had plenty until they learned how to fight in 1943.
I never thought I would see Slovak army in one of your intros. Great video as always!
150MM GUN!!!!!
With fortifications!
YeastyGeorge yeesh lay off on the porn
exerpt from wikipedia article on nuclear artillery
"152 mm projectile ZBV3 for self-propelled guns 2S19 Msta-S, 2S3 Acacia, 2S5 Giatsint-S, towed gun D-20, 2A36 Giatsint-B, and 2A65 Msta-B. The yield was 1 kiloton, maximum range 17.4 km. The nuclear weapon was designated RFYAC-VNIITF and designed by Academician E. I. Zababakhin in Snezhinsk."
Well the Russians already use autoloaders and don't care about elevation and depression so why not ?.
-If they go vs a modern tank operating country they will have better anti armor capabilities.
-If they go vs insurgents they will have better HE.
-And finally if they don't plan to fight anyone they will at least have a scarier gun :)
Something I have been thinking about for awhile is a lower pressure gun firing a rocket assisted kinetic penetrator.
Pros: Smaller, shorter, lighter cannons
Cons: Tendency to turn upwind, minimum effective range, ammo cost
Solutions: Dual grain solid rocket motor to support firing pressure, FCC that compensates for wind.
The biggest drawback is the minimum effective range so this would be best used in a medium tank rather than a MBT that is the tip of the spear.
MOAR South African ARMOUR
They put a prototypical 140mm smoothbore on an M1 Abrams, referred to as the "Thumper". It'd be a cool future armament option, but probably won't be necessary.
New composite materials that cope with higher stresses would be the way to go IMO. More energy in a smaller package.
Maybe tanks will go the same way as ships and become missile launching platforms with drones enabling longer range situational awareness .. kinda like a mini aircraft carrier on land.
honest that sounds like a good idea, tanks can become mini platforms for drones and missile and remain hidden like a sniper, while still mounting a cannon and machine guns
the kf51 panther is equipped with the HERO 120 loitering munition system giving it greater range
There are limits to how big a tank's main armament could get, and in this video, you covered most of them affectively. I am also glad you added that mention about bigger, heavier ammos also reduce loading efficiency, whether manual or mechanical; a crew loader would get tired sooner and maneuvering ammos within the turret is already a taxing matter, a bigger, heavier round would only make that even more so. Meanwhile, the strain on autoloader to load such would also cause it to fail sooner.
One issue I would like to point out was effective engagement range of MBT main armaments. Tank battles in environment like Southern Germany (where I was stationed at one time) where much of the areas were heavily wooded, a bigger, more powerful cannon could hit further wouldn't matter much; it's more of who sees who first and gets off the first round at about 2km.Granted my E Troop did a major tap dance on the Iraqi in 73 Easting at what was probably maximum effective range, unless we are fighting in 'ideal' tank countries or deserts, I'd take our trusty 120mm , great targeting systems and maneuverability over a bigger gun anytime. Oh, I might like to add an opinion of mine, that acquiring bigger guns in defense spending sure sounded much better for politicians because most civilians might have the mindset of 'the bigger, the better'; defense industries would be able to say to the government, "... hey, see you get a much better deal as you are getting larger and more powerful guns". That sure sounded more convincing to politicians than a better gun of same caliber or better ammos.
The West doesnt really have to upgrade when its a given at this point that the T14s numbers will be limited and Nato already have 10x amount of air power. If the bomb is big enough, it doesnt matter what kind of countermeasures the T14 might have. LoL
Lobos222 I Think The issue Is that when you have aircraft vs tanks you have a WAY bigger problem ( Hint Hint WW3 Hint Hint)
Yep, doesn’t matter how good your APS is when the enemy drops a 1 ton bomb on you. They wouldn’t even need an explosive filler if they landed it right on your head
Another big problem is the fact that the Russians don’t focus on Aircraft they focus on anti-aircraft missiles And radar making you Fly through a cloud of missiles to get to your target
This is why I like the auto-loader setup of the STRV-103.
Would big guns go the way of Battleships? For missiles?
I was thinking about missiles after watching your "Swedish Stridsvagn 103 (Strv 103) S-Tank" vid
guns are more versatile
rocket tanks were developed in the 60s. ИТ-1 is a good example. they were to complicated to learn and operate so the idea never went anywhere.
+Анатолий Шпалин
ИТ-1 isn't a good example, it was too complex for then technology level. Same for US rocket tanks like "Starship" or "Sheridan". All kinds of vehicles armed with guided missile were built since then, and tanks got their 'long hand' - missiles launched trough the barrel.
Though missile never became their main weapon and missile-armed vehicles never replaced tanks
Вячеслав Скопюк ИТ-1 is a good example why rockets didn't replace canons on tanks. Also nowadays with smoothbore launcher-canons you can have both, so i don't see a problem here
Army, Navy, Air force
There are many technologies that could cross over (stealth tech, internal bays etc..)
HI Matsumis I really learning a lot from what you are doing by educating us about weapons, I leave in Namibia and I would like to ask you if you can make some comments about the Casspir fighting vehicles. I Know it might be old now but some of us have so much respect for the vehicle especially in counter insurgency operations.
I think they need to consider doing what small arms have done. Take a 4" or 5" SHELL CASING (preferably a disintegrating case like the German 120mm Casing) but "downsize" the actual round's caliber to around 90mm (with a 70mm to 75mm Sub-Penetrator). The increased velocity the 120mm case gives the smaller (sub-penetrator based) round would allow a flatter trajectory and greater penetration for hardened rounds. The HEAT and HE style rounds would lose some power but could be made more effective with Thermobaric (fuel-air based) or Hyperbaric (reactive metal based) warheads. The velocity would be an issue for barrel wear, but recoil wouldn't increase much. I think this should be investigated by NATO.
What the hell do you think a APFSDS round is
Closer to 90mm fired from a 120mm bore. Imagine SHRINKING the CANNON BORE to 90mm and STILL firing an APFSDS (but in 70mm, not 90mm) from that 120mm cartridge. This would greatly increase the round's velocity without increasing the round's weight (actually decreasing it, in fact) or effective recoil (recoil speed will increase but not the distance recoiled). This is one aspect of ammunition (HV small caliber) that may "export" from the US railgun tests. It is possible to increase velocity using certain modern powders and materials used for railgun barrels that will allow smaller calibers to achieve the lethality of the 120mm smoothbore by accelerating smaller caliber projectiles above the perceived 5000 ft per second "threshold limit" of modern tank guns. Imagine your current tank round as a "bottlenecked" cartridge with a normal powder charge but a much smaller projectile.
NO FUCK WHAT YOU SAID, LASERS
swaghauler that was tested in the cold war by the americans I think. But remember velocity is not everything, projectile mass can be equally important
Blox 117: They are reaching maturity. The biggest problems right now are that you have to cool the emitter (usually with liquid nitrogen) of high output lasers (Megawatt output) and charging them. I saw a proposal for an M1 with a homopolar generator connected to the turbine that charged a capacitor to fire the laser. The turret was removed and the laser, targeting sensors, and MG were installed in a small mount on a rotating scissors-type armature (think of cherry picker type lifts) that could raise the weapons and sensors up from behind terrain features. The two problems with it were a LONG cooling and recharge time and insufficient power to instantly burn through armor. The design I saw is now at least 10 years old. I'm sure they have made improvements by now.
I like that you are not biased
It's funny that most of the issues with increasing the caliber that you note in the beginning of the video don't apply to Russian designs because of the heavy reliance on the autoloader.
But anyways, 152mm promises a lot of potential:
- 18% more muzzle velocity with 80's tech compared to late 90's.
- 80% more HE potential.
- 152mm ATGM's, which is a big deal.
- Whole new field for later improvements.
Downsides are no less daunting:
- lack of potential targets outside of all out war(bad guys still use T-55, 62 and early/chinese 72).
- development and production of the whole new systems of HE, HEAT, APDSFS.
- transition from an established caliber or mixing the two in the arsenal.
I guess if the USSR didn't have major economical issues and was still around and we would still be in a state of Cold War, the transition would've happened in the 2000's. But right now it's just not viable.
If the cold war never ended NATO would have the Leopard 3 with 140mm (NGP) since 2015 :( Well, atleast the reseach went into the Puma and the MGCS.
Jesus Matsimus now you are at 70k the man is not stopping the sub growth.
that's youtube
I say produce the most efficient shell possible then match the cannon to the shell.
The Russians have developed a 150mm gun for a tank. They may fit it to the Armata once it is proven up as a new innovation. Overall I don't think they will go for a bigger gun for some time. With there now proven gun fired missiles they have had for decades they may not bother. It gives them long range hard hitting power. Most exported RussianTanks have not been supplied and equipped with these missiles.
There is a different solution to this problem that the US has been working on instead of increasing the caliber, use superior technology to radically increase muzzle velocity, this being the Electro Thermal Chemical (ETC) gun. What it basically does is replace the traditional primer in a shell with a plasma ignition system allowing the propellant charge to burn much hotter and far more evenly, potentially doubling the velocity of a 120mm APDSFS round while keeping shell dimensions the same (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrothermal-chemical_technology for details).
You will still need guns that are able to widhstand a higher chamber pressure.
+Jonny+ I was going for the abbreviated explanation, the article covers that more in depth and barrel plus cannon breaches specifically engineered to take the added stresses of higher barrel pressure and increased recoil are taken into account.
Additionally; the more even and cleaner burning of the propellant charge from the ETC mechanism actually results in improved barrel life (and now that I think about it probably a smaller muzzle flash). If such a system actually delivered on its promises (assuming a doubling of muzzle velocity results in at least double the armor penetration) it would render virtually all armor packages the Russians have on the drawing board and even most western ones on MBTs obsolete (also making any projected APS systems infeasible at intercepting the KE rounds), even the Abrams with the latest armor package upgrades would be sorely tested by an ETC gun at ranges of 2000m or less. Though the Abrams can still accommodate several extra tons of armor without problems to compensate, especially after the M1A3 is reducing overall vehicle weight by 2 tons from electronics modernization alone. Russian tanks would be forced to ditch the previous obsession with a 50 ton maximum weight limit to have any hope of survival in the face of ETC tech.
okay, you have your hypersonic ultratech 120 mm gun, who is good for only one thing - kill other tanks in direct sight. And then you send your tanks, armed with such great weapon, against likes of ISIS
+Вячеслав Скопюк+ tanks can be surprisingly flexible weapons platforms when properly deployed. The ETC Cannon would also cut down on barrel wear out, saving on costs and the higher velocity could increase the effective range of other munitions (can you imagine what effect canister rounds would have with double the velocity?), HEAT rounds could hit distant targets more efficiently and the new AMP rounds could even kill modern tanks from the front. If they were made of sturdier materials it could effectively resurrect the APCBC rounds of yesteryear and features advanced multipurpose capabilities; with devastating after armor effects or punch holes in much tougher cover in urban environments to get at anything hiding inside, even in the unlikely situation where reinforced concrete pillboxes were encountered; AMP shells could pulverize these.
Some analyst in the Pentagon has a paper that claims that21st century tank logistics expenses scale by the fifth power of the tank's weight. That's a pretty harsh function. The additional weight of larger guns beyond 140mm is predicted to be prohibitively expensive.
They need more bias!!!!!
Guns are referred to as "tubes" by the artillery branch. This is an accurate description of how we should think about future tank "guns". In the next generation of tank, the gun/tube launched guided missile will be the primary weapon, not shells. This solves many many problems including recoil forces, barrel wear, weight, sighting accuracy, range, you name it. But the calibre needs to go up to 140mm minimum to gain the best advantage.
Russia doesn't need a bigger gun. What they need is to get rid of the separated two-piece ammunition system if they want more power. It is because of separate ammo, which is why their 125mm gun ammo ended up with less KE than NATO's 120mm ammo.Also, Russia's tank doctrine doesn't exactly rely entirely on the tank for their only AT weapon or infantry support. Surface-surface fires are their best suit, hence they don't need a big gun. All they need is enough firepower to fix a NATO force in place, while the artillery trashes everything in their killbox.
I think the russians should bulid them as big as they want
We will find out how big they can be
In Russia you can only choose two type of guns, 125 mm or 152 mm, and the other one is for something else, like fishing of course
Silly american, nobody go fishing whith cannons. you get much more fish using a few hand grenades
i go fishing with my 4, 10 watt lasers
Анатолий Шпалин : LOL so true , we do it same thing in VIETNAM , but with electric gun . 😃
Just watch, next calibre will be 512mm
I think that you should do a video on the T-10. Keep up the good work.
No! In the WW2 russians had no good armor penetration with the 76,2 mm guns. They made a longer 57 mm gun that could penetrate more. Now they want to use a 152 mm gun, with its disadvantages instead of develop something better: a longer gun, with a new breach, whitch can withstand a bigger propellant. Maybe a smaller caliber too, with its advantages: faster reload, lightweight, more ammo. That gun could shoot faster SABOT rounds, but smaller HE(F/SH) and smoke. Ultra high velocity guns with explosive propellant is a step back, but until railguns cant be used in tanks, it is the best choice for tank to tank warfare.
with explosive propellant you have acceleration limits. So you need bigger caliber. tho today you have no engine that is powerfull enough to carry the armor which defeats a 120mm sabot. So, if we need better penetration. It will be gauss with hybrid motor and better bateries
Go look at the kv 2 then you will know why
Actually, they temporarily suspend the production of the 57mm gun because was too much powerful that overmatch all early German tanks. It came back in service when Tigers and Panthers become more common.
+ARcanRMX
you are mistaken. Production of 57mm guns was stopped because of high percentage of defective gun barrels. Such things were hard to produce for the Soviet industry back then
+Miltac0408
152mm == bigger shell, more explosives fit in. And, suddenly, MBT could be used not only as tank destroyer
Matsimus I would like to hear your opinion about the swiss "Piranha Mowag".
I stand by the comment I made to a similar video of yours some time ago. Here you hit on most - if not all - of the points I made then. Pity I can't find that comment now.
Meh, tanks can't get much bigger without serious drawbacks. Therefore their guns won't need to get any bigger either. Point of fact, the AP round needs only a 25mm bore, so... what's so enticing about a bigger bore?
As I see it, everything is based on the High Explosive round. The AP round needs a sabot to fill the rest of the bore's void; this is a waste of propellant, you can use less propellant if less bore needs filling. The "shot" round can be modified to fill the void of the bore; so that doesn't need a bigger bore. So that begs the questions... How important are these bigger HE rounds? Can a longer HE round suffice?
You see, if the round and the propellant don't need to be connected, then your options for smaller bores expand. It's all about interior space and maneuverability. The projectiles need to be the size of the bore, but the propellant... doesn't! Therefore, you can stack more projectiles into a tighter space, if they aren't attached to their propellants. You can still have your loader; hell, as a team effort, the gunner can then personally choose the projectile he wants to use (that way he'll always know how much of what he has), while the loader concerns himself with ejecting and loading brass.
Hell, does the propellant even need brass? Can't the loader just slap a primer on the end before closing the breech? Things that make you go hmmm...
For a sabot round; the bigger bore allows for more propellant to put it down range faster. Physically the bigger barrel allows for more propellant in the charge. More propellant of course means more velocity; providing you have a barrel length to accelerate it.
+Crag_r
I fail to see how propellant requires a bigger bore...
conflictresearchgroupintl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Bullet-Caliber-comparisom-chart.jpg
Bigger gun means more boom boom behind the round which makes it go faster. and speed is how you defeat armor
shoot just realized someone answered this
Clint Carpentier Those are nice small arms. But once you get to the size of tank guns it becomes a little harder to man handle and create equipment for vastly different ammo. After all; for a tank these days most of it is 2 part anyway.
I've heard a lot of folks talk about the equipping tanks with larger bore guns, the idea being that guns of larger bore are more effective than guns with smaller bores.
This ignores the mechanics of how tank guns operate.
Lets assume the T-14 is equipped with a 152mm gun (as many fan boys say it will be).
The larger bore will have a negative effect on gun performance with APDS rounds because the larger bore requires a larger (and heavier) sabot. The larger diameter of the sabot means more bearing surface resulting in increased friction and lower velocity for the same amount of propellant.
If we look at HEAT rounds, HEAT's penetration tends to be correlated (I don't know if its linear or not) with the diameter of the warhead, so there should be some improvement with a larger round.
However, a larger round is heavier and will result in a more arced trajectory, making penetration at range difficult. Also, most modern armors are optimized against HEAT, so its a question if the increased effectiveness of the round offsets the increased effectiveness of modern armor.
Given that modern ATGM's have a hard time penetrating frontal arc armor and they are not limited in diameter by the bore of a gun, I'd say most likely not.
Many of you will point out the German 140mm gun as evidence of the virtues of an increased bore. However, the bore isn't what makes the German 140mm gun interesting.
The advantage of the German 140mm gun isn't in the bore, its in the case, which looks to have about 50% more internal volume than the 120mm case.
With increased internal case volume, you can load more powder for higher muzzle velocities. In this context, the increased bore is to offset wear on the chamber and barrel throat caused by that much powder being burned.
However, there are no free lunches in tanks. A round that much larger than the 120mm is going to cut into ammo capacity and create problems with ammo handling in the confines of a turret. The only way around the problem is a major turret redesign with increased internal volume for the rounds and an autoloader.
Probably why the German's dropped the idea in favor of the L55 gun.
"Do Russian tanks need bigger guns?" - I'd say no too lol. 125mm is already bigger than NATO's 120mm, has enough good ammo stocks, and gun performance like accuracy and effect against armour (assuming the current T-72/T-90 2A46 - then the 2A82 for T-14/T-90AM), and has powerful HE round and ATGM launching options. Ammo stocks is also an interesting point for there are special rounds (some DU) kept in EMERGENCY RESERVE (for 'Black Days') but the current rounds are deemed still sufficient against armoured targets, so before even upgrading the gun, there is an ammo change option to increase performance.
With regards to 152mm (6in) and Armata; Armata offers a never realised before (on this scale) opportunity for modularity and upgrades combined with the new doctrine of digitised net-centric warfare. I think the T-14 will be using the 125mm 2A82, but the Russian MoD will invest in the infrastructure and design of the 152mm for some models (any kept in service will probably be with the 4th Gds Tank Div as part of the main counter force to NATO - 1st Red Banner Gds Tank Army), so IF the need arises, the tanks can be retrofitted quickly, easily and cost-effectively. This has already happened with older tank models to an extent; most T-90s are in the Western Military District and most of the older T-72s and T-80s that are yet to be modernised or phased out are in the Central and Far-East Mil Districts where the threat is lower and the circumstances are different (terrain, VAST spaces that one can sacrifice in strategic withdrawal etc.)
The other issue here is that in order for a tank to be mobile, it can't really (with today's tech) be all over resistant and make obsolete the 120/125mm guns. In the past we saw the Tiger make the 75mm somewhat redundant in tank warfare with additional armour, hence the USSR's 85mm T-34s and 122mm IS-2s, but to make a tank that would REALLY need a 140mm/152mm to counter it, either it'd need a new breakthrough in technology or it's be so big and cumbersome that it would be easy to counter via Air power or be so immobile that it is a liability to operate strategically.
JUST STFU AND PUT A LASER ON IT
Lasers do not work in an Athmosphere well enough to be a viable anti tank weapon. It's not even a viable anti personel weapon too, or anti anything
yep, lasers dont work. thats why the US Navy did not use laser weapons on one of its ships from 2014 to the present.
Fact: a laser with an output power of 100Kw can easily burn through any tank from miles away
Blox117
You have to power that laser. On a massive battleship, easy. On a tiny tank, much harder.
Great video as always. Agreed, for as long as we/they can get by with existing calibers it makes sense to do so. Improvements in ammo and possible increase in barrel length will help. However there may come a time were armour/APS/ERA etc makes current calibers ineffective, at least at long range. When that happens a increase of caliber may be required. I can imagine a tank force having a small number of upgunned tanks, similar to the firefly, which would be saved for engaging the most heavily armoured enemies, and for engaging targets at very long range. This should provide a good compromise between increased performance whilst reducing the economic and logistical burden. I have heard the Russians are considering doing this by equipping a few of their T-14 with the gun from their new SPG you reviewed a while back.
I would say that yes, we need bigger guns, modern armor packages on both sides of iron curtain are getting more and more effective so why not just slam a big 152 mm gun on USSR tanks (Armata's turret wouldn't be a problem) and 140 mm on allies tanks. Of course there is no way to just put it on old tanks like T-72 or T-90, just check their interior now, with 125 mm, it is more cramped than gym on 2nd day of January, so only making these tanks drones would solve this, but it is absolutely idiotic idea. Still, what's the disadvantage? Modern aiming systems are pretty effective (except if you drive Ariete) so you wont have to worry that much about smaller amount of shells you can carry as you will be able to knock out pretty much everything enemy can throw at you withh the first shot from your mini death star, you can also shoot bigger ATGM's, the size of Kornet for example as it is 152 mm and if it gets old in 50 years, just make it longer and that's all. So why not?
And now let's watch the video
Very interesting vid - Perhaps a better way ahead would be Rail Gun tech or smaller,denser sub caliber penetrators ,
Well I wonder who can design a tank around a rail gun system? A great leap in firepower than conventional guns
Angelo Agriam well, there are still some issues with that, mostly because of the size. Railguns require a lot of energy to fire, and it is needed to place the batteries and something to recharge them all inside the tank. For now, ship based railguns seem the only viable option
before i forget Mat did hear about the US looking in to a lighter 120mm gun and new ammo?
Ok, I haven't asked for a while, but PU-LEES do a video on the ZSU-23-4 Shilka or the Type 99 MBT, thank you you beautiful mong
Biggest problem with the ammunition is that gunpowder has a maximum velocity and we are pretty much close to that velocity. Increasing caliber would give change to use heavier projectiles and they would pen more. One solution to the problem is railguns, but you would need to have one Chernobyl built in your tank to power it. Second option is to not use burning gunpowder gasses to propel the projectiles out of barrel. IE. Light Gas Cannon. Such systems are capable of forcing liquid hydrogen into a metallic state. (I'm not joking here, you can google that, if you want :3) It is actually pretty simple in theory. You just squeeze the gas in a ultra high pressure and release it. At least one AF base somewhere in the USA has one of these, but it is a bit heavy. Breach of that thing weighs like a one metric ton. (That thing can shoot 84mm diameter projectiles at 7.5km/s, yes 7500m/s. Abrams does under 2k The bigger one has 200mm of diameter and can do 4.5km/s) I don't know the weight of such projectiles, but even 1kg object flying 4.5km/s will do a lot of damage. (5kg projectile flying 7,5 km/s would have same amount of energy as 0.03 tons of TNT. Abrams shooting M829A2 (9kg?) shell at 1650m/s would have around 0.003 tons of TNT equivalent.)
You just have to redesign the cannon breach, loading systems and pretty much anything related to the gun. Barrel life is also a bit problematic with higher pressures. But yeah. I'd say it is possible to make 120mm cannon that shoot projectiles at 5km/s, but you would have to change barrel probably everytime you expend all your ammunition in the tank.
And now when I'm thinking of this, you probably have to cover your projectiles with ceramic tiles, because they would melt from the friction at that high speeds.
But yeah, the cheapest solution; Just built shitloads of tanks with older tech, that has higher reliability. If enemy has five ultra high tech tanks, they can't win if enemy has 20 second grade tanks.
leo 2/3 will have probably 130mm gun
More velocity is a better first step before going up in caliber. Higher pressure smooth bores with a long barrel should be sufficient, even with tungsten penetrators. This preserves ammo handling and quantity while often meeting penetration requirements.
Instead of using bigger barrels they should further develop missiles that can be shot. This will help when a regular 120mm round won't do.
+Valhalla. Ehhh, no, that would not solve anything. Because the "only" target that would maybe need over 120mm would be the T14. Which I would assume has decent tech to deal with sub sonic incoming missiles at long range (early warning, not engagement of the missile).
The Russians had missile ammo for their T72s to counter the max range of the Abrams cannon, but that was before so current day countermeasures was a thing.
Lobos222 that just shows why improvements to missiles is so important. Hardening them to electronic countermeasures, making them more agile and faster.
there already are missiles google the refleks
Cathexis256 I know that there are missiles already. Just like guns have existed for hundreds of years yet we continue to redevelop and improve them. Why not do the same with tank fired missiles?
神様 in Valhalla but the t14 has soft and hard kill aps
The leopard footage is from the military base where I work :0
Hello from Spain ;)
Why the gun barrels on Russian tanks are longer than western tanks ?
probably bigger caliber, or to try and make it faster so it can penetrate more [or in this case the same amount as western MBT guns.]
The energy of the round at the muzzle depends on the gun barrel length as much as it does the caliber.
if you've ever been around a modern tanks gun firing, you'd have noticed a tremendous boom but also a gigantic muzzle flash.
All that flash is powder that hasn't burnt up fully inside the barrel and transferred it's chemical energy into the rounds kinetic energy. (technically, it's still imparting some energy, but let's not split hairs...)
The germans actually tested this and noticed that the 125mm l55 gun worked pretty much just as well as the 140mm prototype.
Another point of contention is space for ammunition. The larger the round, the more storage space you need for it inside the tank, which as we all know is at a premium. So either you need to build a much bulkier tank or you have to lose 10 rounds of capacity (if you are lucky).
In addition, one has to wonder what type of round would benefit from the increased caliber. APFSDS are subcaliber rounds as is and their effectiveness is no derived from caliber size. Indeed, they would gain the most from a longer barrel than a larger caliber.
HEAT and HE-Frag rounds would definitely benefit from a larger caliber, seeing as that would mean more explosive charge, but there really is no target out there that a 140mm or 152mm HEAT round could kill that a 120mm or 125mm can't and the same is roughly true for the HE-Frag.
I gotta say, if I’m in any western tank, with the ruskies coming at me, Challenger 2 all the way. DORCHESTER
Ha i destroyed a Challenger2 with a T-62 in war Thunder
A 152 mm round is around 80% larger than a 125, and that would greatly reduce the amount of ammunition carried to about 24-30 in existing tanks. As it happened with the IS-2, it could carry only 28 rounds in stead of 60 (T-34-85) or 76-77 (T-34-76).
why the hell build a bigger gun when all you need is penetration, besides where tanks go some guy with an anti-tank missile will just blow your oversized slow firing ego gun to little pieces of propaganda.
Have you heard of the Silver Bullet? the M829A1 shell. The Leopard is able to fire the LAHAT missile.
and another thing. Tanks like the Leopard and the Abrams are stil very powerful thanks to their latest technology.
I think bigger guns are a nessecery thing. But the exact size will be determed by NATO
They need 23mm guns.
Actually 57mm. Look up ZSU-57-2 in War Thunder.
Nick Dzink no please no, too much bias
Shamir Roshni Need dual 23mm turrets
actually i think, not in near future, but one day we will see a tank whit some kind of rail-gun.... if a ship can have it ..... why not a tank ( i understand its hard to do it ) but one day i think it will be a thing, and also, i think we dont need bigger guns, but better rounds, your platform can be as good as u can but if u are shooting potatos the foe will laugh at you. cheeryo mats good video as always :D !
Da
We need more Russian bias in this world)))))))))))
Derptank wut do you mean tovarisch no bias only sekrit and historikal dokuments )))))))))
Just one question. Could we have something like a "semi autoloading" gun? The machine loads the chemical propellant and the loader gets the actual shell piece loaded, this way the autoloading mechanism doesn't need too much space and we can have non-explosive shell parts stowed in the turret!
Welp, they did do a ton of damage with the bigger gun tactic to ze German back in ww2.
An interesting alternative to bigger guns is using a new propellants instead,. For instance the ETC (plasma) suggestion.
They say with this propellant the lightweight American 120 mm XM-291 came close to achieving 17 MJ of muzzle energy, which is the lower-end muzzle energy spectrum for a 140 mm gun.
And because of its design it will also reduce pressure placed on the barrel in comparison to alternative technologies that offer the same muzzle energy given the fact that it helps spread the propellant's gas much more smoothly during ignition. But the really sweet spot here is that it can be integrated into current gun systems.
Al though it would be very interesting to see what kind of a punch this propellant together with a 130 mm gun can deliver.
230 likes and 0 dislikes... it'd be a shame if someone... *PRESSED THE DOWNVOTE BUTTON*
Omnicron You did it...you actually did it. DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!
I'm definately looking forward to the Rheinmetall 130 mm gun projekt. Maybe you can make a video about it, because it looks very interesting.
Wonder why Russians always have bigger caliber on gun?
Restless Apparition Why not?
Different munition. Especially after 1980s or so, NATO started using depleted uranium in their ammo(not just tanks, even the 20mm on Bradley can use it) which gives much more power compared to 'standard' shells.
Omega Alpha Russians use it too...
Restless Apparition It started long ago. The Russians preferred larger cannon on there aircraft. They were very good in this area achieving much higher firing rates even on there guns on ships in high calibre. I don't really know. I suspect it was because they perfected making automatic cannons for there aircraft in WW2 and once they had success and the experience they just stayed with it. Very much like I wonder why the USA keeps building large Aircraft Carrier's in numbers when against a peer enemy they are becoming more and more vulnerable. We all get set in our ways.
actually it was the USSR which started using depleted uranium first. It was first seen used on T-62 tanks.
To the other side of the argument: How to exploit the weaknesses of the enemy.
Here i still steal a volumen from the swedish S103 turretless tank. With wheels you furthermore get rid of the tracks. It can't go everywhere a tank can - close; but not quite.
The turret of a MBT is about 20 tons of the 60 - switching to rubber tyres will slim down a couple of tons extra and get rid of friction, so a minor engine will do. All that saving could go into better protection. so we will end up with a combat weight of say 30 tons.
A ridged mounted gun will allow an automatic loader that is not too flimsy. It will allow reload to take place through the back door and isolate the ammunition in the bustle which is in fact the last 1-2 meters of the chassis. An armour plate separating the crew from the ammunition should ensure that in the event of a hit ammunition will explode away from the crew - giving them a sporting chance of survival.
Incidentally it would eliminate the need for a smokeextractor. The S103 has 105 mm gun like the Leopard 1, but of 62 calibers instead of 52. Or 20% longer tube. That should give the bolt a bit extra speed out of the muzzle.
As we have eliminated the tasks that demand upper body strength: Ammunition handling and track repair - we can use girls in the tank. Presumeably some that hates remarks of women drivers - and crush your family saloon under her tanks wheels.
Violence is bad
They need the baneblade
Bigger guns are always better
Except, of course, for all the reasons it isn't that Matsimus mentioned in his video,
i think that the 120mm gun on the M1A2 is plenty adequate, but that bigger guns may be useful for certain purposes, such as ATGM launchers like on the sheridan.
does the new Russian tanks run on vodka ?
da Jokes Do american tanks run on Tacos and salsa? Oh wait, it isnt 2025 yet.
No, but the crew does :p
Mitch Paul no they use tea
Remember Conquer? No? Like Chieftain it had a 120mm gun, however unlike Chieftain in had one part brass case ammo. It made the Conq. a huge tank, difficult to operate. Chieftain solved the problem with multi-part ammo, including bag charges.
no they dont ..no ones needs bigger guns we need more powerful propellant
kyoat Bites Agreed? If your Check The K.E equation ( 1/2 m(mass)v^2( velocity)) so increasing The velocity increases energy WAY More than just adding mass.
kyoat Bites : How about IS-7 turret on ARMANTA ?
"Use a gun and if that don't work, use more gun." - TF2 Engineer.