Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Share

    Poll

    for you:

    [ 0 ]
    0% [0%] 
    [ 4 ]
    57% [57%] 
    [ 3 ]
    43% [43%] 

    Total Votes: 7

    cracker

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  cracker on Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:02 pm

    Hello

    Whenever you hear about the L7, it's like "And god created the L7 on the 8th day" you know... But, let's debate this, because, factually, the L7 is not nearly as good as said to be, or rather, the D-10T is not as lacking as said to be vs the "mighty L7".

    Reminder: The D-10T (TG, T2S) is a soviet 100mm tank gun first issued on the T-54 (as early as 1945 on the first prototype), and basically arming the whole family including the Type 69 chinese tank and the latest T-55 variants such as the polish T-55AM2. In fact it was never really used on any other tank, because T-54/55 family was so prolific that no other tank was made to carry it. It was used in its early form during WW2 in the SU-100 spg.

    The L7 is a british 105mm rifled tank gun first issued in 1959 on the Centurion Mk.5, then adopted worlwide to retrofit existing tanks, or used as the armament for new developements, it became de facto NATO standard for tanks. The L7 origins are very simple, it was a large bore version of the 20 pounder (83.4mm rifled gun), using the same case enlarged to 105mm.

    Fact N°1: D-10T case is bigger and longer than that of the L7. You didn't know it, one tends to imagine the opposite. 105x607mm vs 100x695mm. Rim base diameter of both cartridges: 147mm for both! Thus, the D-10T has a bigger volume for propelant.

    But british propelants were very good, and it equalizes in performance... The other russian 100mm rifled gun, the D-54, used this same 695mm long case, but with higher pressure load. Stats wise, the D-54 outclassed the L7.

    To put these in perspective, the US 90mm cartridge is much shorter and slimmer than the 100mm, and roughly as long as the L7 cartridge. 90x600mm, with a 130mm rim base diameter.

    The german WW2 88mm KwK 43 cartridge is MUCH bigger than all of them, at 88x822mm with a 146mm rim base. Other german cartidges: 75mm KwK 42, 75x640mm, 122mm rim. It's bigger than L7, slimmer. Hell, even the PaK 40 cartridge totally dwarfs the L7 (and D-10T) at a whoping 75x714mm, but its very slim with a 100mm rim. The German 105mm FlaK cartridge (probably be the one used in a potential AFV 105mm gun) was 105x769mm with 136mm rim.



    Fact N°2: D-10T has a longer bore, about L54 vs L52 for the L7.

    The L7 was designed with a bore evacuator, but the D-10T recieved one in 1953 when it became the D-10TG, adopted on the T-54A in 1954.



    So, what's with the L7? Pretty much nothing in itself. The L7 was simply built to shoot only APDS, and HE shells. It did so from the first day, when the D-10T used exclusively full bore AP shots and some HEATs. When the D-10T2S got APDS in late 1960s, it matched performance of comparable era L7 APDS. The L7 had fired full bore AP shells, it would in fact have been inferior to the D-10T, considering the lower volume of propellant and heavier projectile. It would have been greatly inferior to the D-54 firing BR-412D APCBC (1000m/s reported in D-54 vs 890 for D-10T, said to be over 900 for D-10T2S, the gun of the T-54B (1957) and all successor tanks.)

    I speculate the L7 would have fired full bore AP shots at 850-880m/s. Most conventional HE and HESH ammo for L7 are between 750 to 900m/s, as well as early HEAT, but many modern designs are the so called multipurpose shell, lightweight, and even subcalibered, making HE/HEAT shells to 1100m/s+, but they carry far less explosive than conventional HE. HE designs for D-10T are roughly 900m/s shells, while HEAT are also 900m/s (and 1075m/s for modernised one). APDS wise, comparable  types for both guns (first gen) are around 1400-1500 m/s.

    These velocities prove that the L7 ain't more powerful, they are for all intent and purposes, equal.


    D-10T2S also fired fantastic HEAT shells in the 1960s and 70s, and finally got APDS, then even APFSDS in the 1970s, comparatively, NATO HEAT and early APFSDS for L7 were roughly equal in performance to the same ammo of the D-10.

    L7 outmatched the D-10 in the 1980s and after, because of new ammo developements, while the soviets considered the D-10T outdated and didn't care for newest ammo, focusing on 125mm.

    Nowadays, many manufacturer propose modern ammo for 100mm that matches performances of modern 105mm ammo, both HEAT and APFSDS, in fact many 105mm APFSDS designs were simply adapted to 100mm gun.


    Thus in effect, with comparable ammo, a L7 gun is not better than a D-10T2S.

    L7 and D-10T are similar guns, contrary to popular belief, the L7 isn't "miles away better".

    This myth comes from the israeli war of 1967 (and 1973 in a lesser manner), when arab armies using T-54 and 55 mostly had surplus AP ammo like BR-412B, not even BR-412D! and only a few HEAT for "critical moments", and simply NO APDS at all (maybe they had more HEAT and some APDS in 1973), and they faced highly trained israeli tank crews, most of them armed (freshly, like some rearming 2 weeks before the war in 1967!) with the so hyped L7, like centurions and retrofitted M48 (locally called shot and magach)....
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:17 am

    Good post. The L7 does get some absurd love.

    A few points however:
    HEAT shells from just about every country had serious fusing issues up through 60s and 70s apparently.

    Also D-10 was considered to be at its limit by the time the M-60 appeared by the Soviet general staff....they tested it on Iranian M60s and found it was essentially of fringe utility, hence the accelerated demand for T-62 until the T-64 and all of its issues could be sorted out (or not).
    L7 on the other hand was considered adequate for countering Soviet armor until the new composite tanks were introduced, which was quite a bit later than M60, especially because of the T-64s introduction issues.

    cracker

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  cracker on Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:38 am

    D-10T got APDS in 1967 and APFSDS in 1975, final APFSDS got in 1978, BM25 tungsten tip, about 300mm 2km pen. This is comparable with early APFSDS of L7 / M68.

    This round as well as the improved HEAT BK17M (with long probe, and 1075m/s velocity) also adopted in 1978, the T-55 could kill M60a1 and a3 no problem, it it hits lower hull or turret face.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 4:06 am

    But the M60 was in production by 1960 IIRC already, hence the sudden freak-out by the USSR to get the 115mm into service.

    EDIT: It was M60A1 actually, I guess that was in production a few years later.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  Mike E on Thu Jan 22, 2015 5:38 am

    TR1 wrote:Also D-10 was considered to be at its limit by the time the M-60 appeared by the Soviet general staff....they tested it on Iranian M60s and found it was essentially of fringe utility, hence the accelerated demand for T-62 until the T-64 and all of its issues could be sorted out (or not).
    L7 on the other hand was considered adequate for countering Soviet armor until the new composite tanks were introduced, which was quite a bit later than M60, especially because of the T-64s introduction issues.
    Exactly... The D-10 was a WW2 design, the L7 wasn't (though it was based on WW2 design lessons). Of course the newer gun was superior, but that doesn't mean the D-10T was bad. The 115 mm was a pretty big step up anyway.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 22, 2015 8:58 am

    I am biased...  Smile

    I did really love the nickname of the Su-100 tank killer... FEOE... F*ing End of Everything....

    I have a German book on Soviet tanks and the Su-100 was a vehicle they really respected for its power.

    The german WW2 88mm KwK 43 cartridge is MUCH bigger than all of them, at 88x822mm with a 146mm rim base. Other german cartidges: 75mm KwK 42, 75x640mm, 122mm rim. It's bigger than L7, slimmer. Hell, even the PaK 40 cartridge totally dwarfs the L7 (and D-10T) at a whoping 75x714mm, but its very slim with a 100mm rim. The German 105mm FlaK cartridge (probably be the one used in a potential AFV 105mm gun) was 105x769mm with 136mm rim.

    Regarding the 88mm you have to qualify that as there were two very different 88mm guns used by the Germans during WWII with very different levels of performance and shell capacity.



    The rounds from left to right are:  37x249R (3,7 cm Pak / Kwk AP), 50x289R (5 cm L/42 Kwk Pzgr 40), 50x420R (5cm L/60 Pak 38, Kwk), 75x243R (7,5 cm L/24), 75x495R (7,5 cm L/43 and L/48: later Pz IV), 75x640R (7,5cm Kwk 42 L/70: Panther tank), 88x571R (8,8 cm L/56: Tiger 1), 88x822R (8,8cm L/71: Tiger 2). for the German rounds (the left hand side).

    Source is Anthony Williams's excellent website on large calibre ammo ( has moved to: http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/tankammo2.html )


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    cracker

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  cracker on Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:39 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Also D-10 was considered to be at its limit by the time the M-60 appeared by the Soviet general staff....they tested it on Iranian M60s and found it was essentially of fringe utility, hence the accelerated demand for T-62 until the T-64 and all of its issues could be sorted out (or not).
    L7 on the other hand was considered adequate for countering Soviet armor until the new composite tanks were introduced, which was quite a bit later than M60, especially because of the T-64s introduction issues.
    Exactly... The D-10 was a WW2 design, the L7 wasn't (though it was based on WW2 design lessons). Of course the newer gun was superior, but that doesn't mean the D-10T was bad. The 115 mm was a pretty big step up anyway.

    You haven't even read my topic, haven't you.... How surprising from you... The D-10 is a WW2 design yes, and so what? L7 has nothing over it, it uses much smaller cartridge, doesn't have a longer bore, nor higher pressure.... And the 115mm was simply a different approach, it didn't outclass D-10 and L7 by a significant margin. Late 80s APFSDS for L7 totally outclass any ammo for the 115mm... So it's all about ammo.

    The L7 is an enlarged 20pdr with the same cartridge, and volume of propelant for a much bigger projectile. It's selling point was that it fired APDS and never bothered with an AP round.

    The L7 is not better than the D-10.



    GarryB wrote:I am biased... Smile

    I did really love the nickname of the Su-100 tank killer... FEOE... F*ing End of Everything....

    I have a German book on Soviet tanks and the Su-100 was a vehicle they really respected for its power.

    The german WW2 88mm KwK 43 cartridge is MUCH bigger than all of them, at 88x822mm with a 146mm rim base. Other german cartidges: 75mm KwK 42, 75x640mm, 122mm rim. It's bigger than L7, slimmer. Hell, even the PaK 40 cartridge totally dwarfs the L7 (and D-10T) at a whoping 75x714mm, but its very slim with a 100mm rim. The German 105mm FlaK cartridge (probably be the one used in a potential AFV 105mm gun) was 105x769mm with 136mm rim.

    Regarding the 88mm you have to qualify that as there were two very different 88mm guns used by the Germans during WWII with very different levels of performance and shell capacity.


    And by saying KwK 43 isn't obvious that I mean the long 88? The other one is not even worth mentioning. There were 5 types of 88mm cartridges by the way... 88x390 U Boot gun, 88x571 Flak 36 and KwK 36, 88x822 KwK 43 / PAK 43, 88x855 Flak 41 AA, 88x880 kriegsmarine AA... The last 3 being related to each others and same performance, the KwK 43 one being the shortest and fattest to fit in AFVs.

    cracker

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  cracker on Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:55 pm

    Origins of the D-10T...


    B-34 -> S-34 -> BS-3
               S-34+D-5T -> D-10T

    The B-34 was a heavy AA gun for ships, designed in 1936, the cartridge too. It was adopted in 1940 and produced only at 42 pieces until june 1941 (+afer the war)

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91-34


    The S-34 was an attempt to mount it in a tank turret (KV-85 or IS chassis), developped in 1944 or even late 1943. As an AA gun and very young system, the B-34 had only AA style rounds, HE with time fuzes, and normal HE, some other rounds too. The BR-412 APHE was thus developped in 1944, in parallel with the APBCHE BR-412B, both, based on the design of 85mm ammo, respectively the APBCHE BR-365A and BR-365K APHE.

    Unsuccessful for AFV use, the S-34 was put away, but a gun based on it was developped as a heavy AT gun, the BS-3. BS-3 was successfully used in WW2 in many roles, and after WW2 too. It was replaced by the D-48 85mm AT gun in the 1950s, and the T-12 100mm smoothbore gun soon after.

    BS-3



    http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=35055
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-%D0%BC%D0%BC_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1%86%D0%B0_1944_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0_%28%D0%91%D0%A1-3%29
    http://topwar.ru/18481-100-millimetrovaya-polevaya-pushka-bs-3.html


    In parallel work continued to lighten and modify the S-34, finally with solutions used on the D-5T 85mm tank gun, and became the D-10, first used on the SU-100.

    B-34 bore length was 56 caliber, BS-3, 59.6 caliber, and D-10, 53.5.

    So, here you have it, D-10T origins are as old as 1936, and the cartridge pattern too. Quite impressive for a gun just as powerful as the so hyped L7 developped at least 20 years after it.


    Look in the wiki link of BS-3, penetration table gives 290mm 2km for BM-8 APDS.

    More about 100mm gun. (several pages) http://www.prowars.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut9801/SuTgu/SuTgu001.htm

    Here too, and a list of ammo at the bottom... note the early (1961) HEAT (BK5) was 900m/s, but the modern (1978) HEAT (BK17) was 1075m/s https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-%D0%BC%D0%BC_%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%94-10

    Soviet APFSDS for D-10: BM19, BM20 (early mid 70s) and BM25 (1978)... 1430m/s.

    Pretty poor designs with very small tungsten core and just steel arrow body... Only nowadays are available true monobloc DU or tungsten APFSDS.... Reason: they didn't care about 100mm anymore, but only for 125mm. Soviet army and warpac units with T-55 in the 1980s had a load out of BM25 APFSDS + BK17/M HEAT, and more older rounds in reserve like BM19/20 APFSDS, BM8 APDS, and BK5/M HEAT. And there were still BR-412D APCBC around sometimes (note that this round would be better than any other for the flank of any NATO tank like M60A3 and Leopard1A4)


    some pics of APFSDS

    115mm and 100mm ones (center) http://www.rbs.ru/VTTV/99/firms/kotplast/94.jpg
    http://cdn-frm-eu.wargaming.net/wot/ru/uploads/monthly_05_2013/post-601298-0-41583000-1367781671.jpg
    http://cdn-frm-eu.wargaming.net/wot/ru/uploads/monthly_05_2013/post-601298-0-88969100-1367781628.jpg
    http://cdn-frm-eu.wargaming.net/wot/ru/uploads/monthly_05_2013/post-601298-0-77280000-1367783079.jpg
    http://cdn-frm-eu.wargaming.net/wot/ru/uploads/monthly_05_2013/post-601298-0-95906300-1367781649.jpg


    To conclude...


    The BM19-20-25 had no better penetration vs vertical armour than the BM8 APDS! (300mm at 2km for BM25, vs 290mm, well, this is with russian criterias)

    This is because the BM8 was an expensive shell with a big tungsten core, while APFSDS were adopted because they achieved almost the same penetration while using a ridiculously small tungsten core. Other advantage of APFSDS vs APDS was better energy retention at range (better shoot a BM8 at 800m but a BM25 at 3000), very cheap manufacture, and very good accuracy, and to finish, better behaviour vs very sloped armour.... The same thing was with early 115 and 125mm APFSDS. You'll find that the BM8 penetrates more than early 115mm APFSDS (only the steel one and small tungsten core ones)...., but not than 125mm earliest APFSDS.

    So, to stay fair, only the comparable technology APFSDS of the L7 can be compared to soviet APFSDS for D-10! Of course 1980s and 1990s monobloc DU or tungsten arrows for L7 totally outclass 1970s-80s cheap steel/tungsten arrows of the D-10. It doesn't make the L7 a better gun, ammo issue.

    And don't forget the D-10 relied a lot on HEAT rounds, BK5M penetration being 380mm, and BK17M around 400mm (I can't find it now...), and, L7 HEAT were just as good, and became better, because once again, the soviets stopped ammo developement for D-10T in 1978, introducing BM25 and BK17M APFSDS / HEAT duo.

    Ammo issue, bureacratic issues, that's what make the L7 "better" than the D-10T2S, nothing else
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 23, 2015 9:09 am

    My comment about the 88mm was to emphasise that at the time it was the equivalent German gun in that class (ie heavy anti aircraft) and as you point out the 88mm round changed dramatically even over the period between the Tiger I and Tiger II.

    Unlike the 100mm gun it could deal with any tank at the start of the war but needed rather more power by the end for the same role... unlike the Soviet 100mm round.

    Regarding ammo types full calibre armour piercing rounds are seriously effected by angled armour plate, while APFSDS penetrators are not.

    The 100mm gun was a very potent gun let down a little by its available ammo options.

    That same problem exists for the MiG-25 and the Hurricane fighter and for the same reasons... no point in investing in new engines or armament when the MiG-31/Spitfire/115mm and then 125mm gun are in front of you.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jan 23, 2015 5:06 pm

    cracker wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Also D-10 was considered to be at its limit by the time the M-60 appeared by the Soviet general staff....they tested it on Iranian M60s and found it was essentially of fringe utility, hence the accelerated demand for T-62 until the T-64 and all of its issues could be sorted out (or not).
    L7 on the other hand was considered adequate for countering Soviet armor until the new composite tanks were introduced, which was quite a bit later than M60, especially because of the T-64s introduction issues.
    Exactly... The D-10 was a WW2 design, the L7 wasn't (though it was based on WW2 design lessons). Of course the newer gun was superior, but that doesn't mean the D-10T was bad. The 115 mm was a pretty big step up anyway.

    You haven't even read my topic, haven't you.... How surprising from you... The D-10 is a WW2 design yes, and so what? L7 has nothing over it, it uses much smaller cartridge, doesn't have a longer bore, nor higher pressure.... And the 115mm was simply a different approach, it didn't outclass D-10 and L7 by a significant margin. Late 80s APFSDS for L7 totally outclass any ammo for the 115mm... So it's all about ammo.

    The L7 is an enlarged 20pdr with the same cartridge, and volume of propelant for a much bigger projectile. It's selling point was that it fired APDS and never bothered with an AP round.

    The L7 is not better than the D-10.
    You clearly didn't read mine either; the L7 was newer, and as such, brought along newer technological advancements. 

    Don't even get me started Cracker, I'm not finished with the T-10.

    @GarryB I'll never get over the fact that the Soviet 152's could blow the turret off of a kraut tank...

    cracker

    Posts : 232
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  cracker on Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:00 pm

    "You clearly didn't read mine either; the L7 was newer, and as such, brought along newer technological advancements."

    I perfectly read yours, and, repeating again and again "newer = better" disregaring facts won't make it more true. The L7 has no "technological advancements" whatsoever vs the 20pdr or D-10T or 90mm M41 guns. They are all advanced high pressure AFV rifled guns. The fact it was made over 12 years after the D-10 doesn't make it better. Internal pressure are identical (not identical but comparable...), and if you compare only comparable ammo, they perform identically.

    Read again my post, and how the D-10 cartridge dwarfs the L7 one.


    "Don't even get me started Cracker, I'm not finished with the T-10."

    What else do you want to say about the T-10? I thought I clearly showed you were wrong Smile

    @GarryB I'll never get over the fact that the Soviet 152's could blow the turret off of a kraut tank...

    You mean you don't believe it?
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:06 pm

    @GarryB I'll never get over the fact that the Soviet 152's could blow the turret off of a kraut tank...

    You mean you don't believe it?

    I think he is astonished by the violent force it can create.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:39 pm

    cracker wrote:"You clearly didn't read mine either; the L7 was newer, and as such, brought along newer technological advancements."

    I perfectly read yours, and, repeating again and again "newer = better" disregaring facts won't make it more true. The L7 has no "technological advancements" whatsoever vs the 20pdr or D-10T or 90mm M41 guns. They are all advanced high pressure AFV rifled guns. The fact it was made over 12 years after the D-10 doesn't make it better. Internal pressure are identical (not identical but comparable...), and if you compare only comparable ammo, they perform identically.

    Read again my post, and how the D-10 cartridge dwarfs the L7 one.


    "Don't even get me started Cracker, I'm not finished with the T-10."

    What else do you want to say about the T-10? I thought I clearly showed you were wrong Smile

    @GarryB I'll never get over the fact that the Soviet 152's could blow the turret off of a kraut tank...

    You mean you don't believe it?
    The L7 could sustain a far superior rate of fire from what I've seen. Which leads me to believe it had superior reliability and endurance characteristics as well. I'd love it if anyone knew more in this kind of thing... 

    Wrong? Clearly both of us have our opinions in the matter... I firmly believe that heavy tanks after WW2 were an outdated concept. More so when the modern MBT's started hitting the fields (upgraded T-54/55's, T-64's etc. 

    No no no.... What Werewolf said. Makes me wonder if such brute force would be effective on today's vehicles. I mean, the 152 shells carry as much grunt as a modern 155, I can only imagine a direct hit would be brutal. Personally I have a wierd fascination with the ISU-152-2 and it's 152 mm BL guns. A 152 mm wheels flying at nearly 1000 would have been devastating back then. A modern-age smooth bore variant............
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  Mike E on Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:50 pm

    Gotta ask... Where do you find this kind of info (not trying to discredit you). I used to have a GREAT site that had the penetration values of all kinds of ammunition/guns on tanks from WW2 to the mid-Cold War, but I somehow lost the link.... Can't wait till the day of plasma-boosted (forgot the name of this tech and I know it sounds cheesy) high-velocity, large caliber shells... Nothing like 130+ mm round going ~2,500 m/s via a smoothbore barrel!
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Jan 23, 2015 11:53 pm

    I had once a site that was linking Kubinka tests of WW2 tanks of penetration and armor tests, but don't know the site anymore maybe someone knows the site i am speaking about?
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2763
    Points : 2813
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:03 am

    Yep, it was a site like that one... There are so hard to re-find.
    avatar
    Khepesh

    Posts : 1665
    Points : 1734
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Ахетатон и Уасет

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  Khepesh on Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:10 pm

    Please excuse the necropost, but an important element is missing here. While the L7 does have a greater punch that D-10T, it is not the full story. The element missing is the fire control systems and sights used on Soviet and NATO tanks. Soviet systems were made for the most predominant conditions found in central Europe, in which surveys from engagements during the war and terrain surveys showed that the majority of engagements were, and would be, at no greater range than 500m and most other ranges being between 500m and 1000. While it cannot be denied that NATO tanks had better sighting and fire control systems for the commander compared to T-55, at the average engagement range expected in a war in primarily over the German countryside, this superiority was to an extent negated, for at ranges at 500m the trajectory of APDS is so flat that the gunner would have a difficult job to miss. IMO, where the reputation of the L7 comes from is the Arab against Israeli wars where T-55 was put against L7 armed Centurions [Sho't] and used in desert conditions were the ranges were mostly far greater than in heavily forested North German Plain, easily 2000m and higher, and put T-55 at serious disadvantage, and even if D-10T were better than L7, would likely not have influenced the tank v tank engagements of Six Day and Yom Kippur wars. The training of the Arab crews did not help matters either and while they had lots of enthusiasm, at the start of the wars, generally, but not in all cases, were not as proficient using their tanks as IDF. Had WWIII occured, even while most Warsaw Pact countries were still using T-55, a different picture of capabilities would have emerged, and much more favorable to Soviet tanks, tho likely the few survivors would not be bothering to discuss such things and too concerned with making a spear and hunting mutant deer...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 16, 2016 10:05 am

    If we are going to raise the dead I would also add that the west is greatly enamoured with the APFSDS rounds but the Soviets liked the multipurpose value of larger calibre guns so they liked the extra muzzle velocity of the 125mm but also the extra potent power of the HEAT rounds which were also carried in large numbers...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: L7 vs D-10T, not what you might think.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:22 am