[Jun Hyuk’s curiosity] After World War II, artillery equipment, as the main force of battlefield firepower, gradually gave way to missiles with more superior accuracy and range. This is especially evident in the air force and naval equipment, and naval destroyers and Although the frigate is still equipped with main guns, the main firepower is still from the various missiles it carries. The role of the naval guns is not obvious. The air force’s guns basically have no chance of performance, but this is in the main battle equipment of the army. It seems a little different.
Curiosity: Why do main battle tanks use shells instead of missiles, because they "deviate from their original intentions."
Compared with naval warships’ shields and vertical launches, the air force’s missiles are “full” "The Army's main battle tank seems to have gone through decades of development. Since the advent of the Renault FT-17 tank in World War I, the basic shape, 360 rotatable turret on top, and the layout of the tank gun have basically not changed.
Especially after being equipped with missiles, although it has the ability to launch missiles, the main firepower is still "my own way" artillery and projectiles. Even in the development of the next generation of tanks, tank guns are basically added. The caliber, such as 130 or even 155, has not yet proposed the idea of "full missileization." Modern heavy anti-tank missiles are very powerful and relatively simple to operate. Why not equip tanks? The reason here can be simply understood in two points:
1. The special anti-tank missile is too large
Modern main battle tank, taking the excellent Leopard 2 as an example, the main equipment is 1 door 120mm smoothbore gun, with 42 rounds of ammunition, the DM53 armor-piercing projectile has a mass of 21.4 kilograms, the US M829A3 armor-piercing projectile has a mass of 22.3 kilograms, and the length of the projectile is 0.982 meters. In terms of caliber and quality, whether it is manual loading or automatic loading , Can maintain a balance between the number of ammunition and firepower.
and modern heavy anti-tank missiles,The US military’s multi-purpose "Hellfire" weighs 49.4 kg, has a diameter of 178 mm, and a length of 1.63 meters. For the limited space in the main battle tank, the number of ammunition will be greatly reduced. Correspondingly, the tank car The body space and turret need to be enlarged to accommodate the missile, which will further increase the weight and construction cost of the main battle tank.
Another issue is the guidance problem. Compared with the mid-air gunship, it has a wider field of view. At the same time, the fire control radar and sighting equipment can also be matched with the larger range of anti-tank missiles. Tanks are used as ground units. Without strong battlefield awareness, and without the guidance of other relay units, the difficulty will increase if you want to accurately hit a long-range ground target with a curved shot.
Of course, equipped with more powerful radar, active seeker or fiber-optic guidance, tanks can do it, such as the "Red Arrow-10" anti-tank missile, but there are actually only 8 on its crawler launcher. For tanks, the number of ammunition is somewhat small. Therefore, although armored vehicles carry special anti-tank missiles are very common, but the amount of ammunition is very limited. If the tank uses special anti-tank missiles as its main firepower, the continuous firepower capability will be greatly reduced.
2. Basic direct fire and artillery-launched missile cost considerations
The main battle tank is an important fire support in ground combat forces, that is, the main force in the confrontation of armored forces, and it is also an important direct fire for infantry units. Fire support, therefore, armor-piercing projectiles and high-explosive projectiles are "mixed" in the tank's ammunition.
Although it seems that modern tanks are still dominated by artillery, in fact, the first-class tanks actually have the ability to "cannon-launch missiles" (this is not the black "Arjun", but it does not have the ability to cannon-launch missiles) The history of artillery-launched missile research and development is not short. As early as 1957, the former Soviet Union put forward the concept of the first generation of tank artillery-launched missiles. The US military developed the "Oak Stick" artillery-launched missile in 1958.
The "gun-launched missile" capability of modern tanks is very powerful,The effective range of tanks has been greatly increased. For example, Russia has the longest range of 10 kilometers. The 105mm gun that China used to match the "Old 59" to launch missiles has already reached 700mm.
But why do modern tankers still feel like “traditional” artillery equipment. In addition to maintaining a strong direct fire support capability, traditional artillery shells cost less and are matched with modern tank fire control systems to launch armor-piercing shells. The accuracy of shooting the opponent's tank is already very high, especially when used as a basic support firepower. It is very common to launch a large number of shells, but it is not common to launch a large number of artillery-launched missiles.
Relatively speaking, the cost of tank shells is very low, the structure is simple and stable, and the structure of artillery-launched missiles is more complicated. Although research and development for many years, there has been a lot of controversy. The penetration capability is relatively limited, and the cost is a bit: small Expensive, many people think that the design of air defense missiles with submarines is as "tasteless".
From Jun Hejun’s nonsense: Take the account
A dedicated anti-tank missile, the Tao-type anti-tank missile costs about 300,000 US dollars per shot, even the "cheap" domestic Red Arrow 12E costs almost 14 10,000 US dollars, once Australia purchased 200 "Javelin" FGM-148E, it cost 46 million US dollars, the unit price is 230,000 US dollars, and if the tank launches anti-tank missiles, the structure needs to be strengthened, which will inevitably increase the cost and the price will be even higher. .
The artillery-launched missiles used by the tanks are also relatively inexpensive. Vietnam’s T-90S is equipped with the 9M119 artillery-launched missiles (NATO code name: AT-11 "sniper"), and each tank is actually 4 The engine is not fully equipped, mainly because this kind of relatively old equipment still requires a unit price of $20,000, which is still much higher than ordinary tank shells.
Simple horizontal comparison, the Zumwalt-class destroyer developed by the U.S. military, its 155mm advanced naval gun system is very majestic, with a maximum range of 185 kilometers, but the price of dedicated long-range shells is outrageous. deviates from the “initial intention” of artillery long-range firepower strikes that are cheaper. This is also the fact that although modern anti-tank missiles and other missiles are very efficient, towed and self-propelled barrel artillery, whether it is China, the United States, Russia or the military The important reason for a large number of reservations: cheap.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-