Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Share
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:37 am

    Swiss engineers mounted a 140 mm gun on the Leopard 2 and the APFSDS projectile that it fired penetrated 1 m of RHAe easy.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:50 am

    The funny thing of course is that because of the strength of NATO there are two areas where the Russians really are very strong and they are air defence weapons and anti tank weapons... good luck with that armoured charge into Russia BTW... hope them new uber US tanks have anti radiation lining.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:50 am

    [quote="GarryB"]

    A 670 mm long penetrator (100 mm longer than current ones)

    http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/
    "Lekalo" (3BM-42M? projectile; 3BM-44M? projectile assembly) (DOI 199-?)

    Research topic "Svinets-1". A brand new round with extremely high
    elongation tungsten alloy penetrator, utilizing a 4-petal finned
    composite sabot with two areas of contact, and subcaliber stabilizing
    fins. This round has a total length of 740mm and so does not fit in
    traditional T-72 autoloaders. The autoloader upgrade is straightforward
    and is assumed to have been carried out on newly built T-90 tanks that
    are therefore compatible with this round. The indications
    3BM-42M/3BM-44M are unconfirmed: even though this is what is written on
    the body of the round in the released picture, it is unclear if the
    round has been fielded and therefore already awarded a GRAU designation;
    Rosoboronexport sales literature still refers to it simply as
    "high-performance APFSDS round".

    This happens a lot :v

    You are referring to the round's total length.

    I am referring specifically to the projectile itself, who's dimensions are about 540 mm long and 22 mm in diameter.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3221
    Points : 3307
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  medo on Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:58 pm

    The funny thing of course is that because of the strength of NATO there are two areas where the Russians really are very strong and they are air defence weapons and anti tank weapons... good luck with that armoured charge into Russia BTW... hope them new uber US tanks have anti radiation lining.

    Don't forget artillery.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:11 pm

    medo wrote:
    The funny thing of course is that because of the strength of NATO there are two areas where the Russians really are very strong and they are air defence weapons and anti tank weapons... good luck with that armoured charge into Russia BTW... hope them new uber US tanks have anti radiation lining.

    Don't forget artillery.

    That's debatable.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:15 pm

    This happens a lot :v

    You are referring to the round's total length.

    I am referring specifically to the projectile itself, who's dimensions are about 540 mm long and 22 mm in diameter.

    Nope.

    The ammo is two piece so its total length (round and stub propellent case) is irrelevant.
    The important length is the length of the projectile within its own propellent charge which has to fit in the radius of the turret ring because being circular a round has to fit opposite it in the autoloader so it has to be less than the radius of the turret ring to fit.
    With a turret bustle autoloader there is no practical length limit for projectiles except the limit imposed by the length of the autoloader chamber for ammo storage.

    All the propellent stubs are a standard size and weight and would never have problems fitting in any T series tank designed to use 125mm ammo.

    The only component of the round that varies in length is the projectile which also has a propellent component in the case of the APFSDS rounds. It is the component that can be too long to fit in an autoloader because it doesn't bend.

    "Now, for the protection and survivability, we are ahead of other
    countries - and the complex of active protection and explosive reactive
    armor T-90 definitely a lot better and safer for all Western models. In
    these matters, we are superior to potential enemy at times "- so praised
    T-90 general.

    Which suggests they have fitted the newest ERA, newest Shtora and presumably the newest ARENA available... whatever models they are. (ERA most likely Relickt).

    "While lacking the command handling, to ensure that the controls can be
    quickly and efficiently allocate target and promptly set targets for
    destruction of enemy firepower. In this direction is actively working,
    if we achieve the results we will achieve the most advanced level in the
    world "- concluded Kovalenko.

    So the battle management system isn't fully functional yet... that sort of thing doesn't work if only a hand full of newly introduced tanks have a system... it needs to be applied to all vehicles and especially recon platforms and HQ and comms vehicles before it can work properly.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:38 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    This happens a lot :v

    You are referring to the round's total length.

    I am referring specifically to the projectile itself, who's dimensions are about 540 mm long and 22 mm in diameter.

    Nope.

    The ammo is two piece so its total length (round and stub propellent case) is irrelevant.
    The important length is the length of the projectile within its own propellent charge which has to fit in the radius of the turret ring because being circular a round has to fit opposite it in the autoloader so it has to be less than the radius of the turret ring to fit.
    With a turret bustle autoloader there is no practical length limit for projectiles except the limit imposed by the length of the autoloader chamber for ammo storage.

    All the propellent stubs are a standard size and weight and would never have problems fitting in any T series tank designed to use 125mm ammo.

    The only component of the round that varies in length is the projectile which also has a propellent component in the case of the APFSDS rounds. It is the component that can be too long to fit in an autoloader because it doesn't bend.

    I don't see the problem here?

    A penetrator's capability is very much so dependent on it's potential KE but it's also dependent on penetrator design. Typically, longer and skinnier penetrators will go through more armor, which is what I was referring to in my post.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:38 am

    A penetrator's capability is very much so dependent on it's potential KE
    but it's also dependent on penetrator design. Typically, longer and
    skinnier penetrators will go through more armor, which is what I was
    referring to in my post.

    Skinnier penetrators are also easier to break up. The longer a penetrator is the more weight it concentrates on the tip on impact. Obviously too thick and it is like trying to punch a hole in paper with the blunt end of a pencil, but then that is what the sharpened end is for... to start the penetration.

    What I was saying in my post was that now they have a turret bustle autoloader they don't need to turn each component of the ammo 90 degrees to load it into the breach, it can be simply a straight ram from storage.

    They can intentionally make their penetrator longer than what can be fitted in a western tank to gain an advantage.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:56 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    A penetrator's capability is very much so dependent on it's potential KE
    but it's also dependent on penetrator design. Typically, longer and
    skinnier penetrators will go through more armor, which is what I was
    referring to in my post.

    Skinnier penetrators are also easier to break up. The longer a penetrator is the more weight it concentrates on the tip on impact. Obviously too thick and it is like trying to punch a hole in paper with the blunt end of a pencil, but then that is what the sharpened end is for... to start the penetration.

    What I was saying in my post was that now they have a turret bustle autoloader they don't need to turn each component of the ammo 90 degrees to load it into the breach, it can be simply a straight ram from storage.

    They can intentionally make their penetrator longer than what can be fitted in a western tank to gain an advantage.

    Right. But like I said, the latest Russian APFSDS is the BM-42M projectile, I have not heard of any further developments. I also doubt that Russian tanks can now load longer penetrators than Western tanks. The M829A3 projectile is over 830 mm long, almost a full feet longer than the latest Russian projectiles.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:53 pm

    Right. But like I said, the latest Russian APFSDS is the BM-42M
    projectile, I have not heard of any further developments. I also doubt
    that Russian tanks can now load longer penetrators than Western tanks.
    The M829A3 projectile is over 830 mm long, almost a full feet longer
    than the latest Russian projectiles.

    Do you think the latest Russian APFSDS would be known about?

    Tell me all about all the types of ammo developed for the T-95.

    (If you don't know anything about the types of ammo developed for the T-95 why would you know more about new rounds being developed now?)

    Existing Russian tanks have to store their ammo in an under floor autoloader that limits the length each of the two components can be and still be loaded.

    This new tank modification (T-90AM) removes that restriction on ammo design... do you think they are going to keep the penetrators shorter or start making them longer?

    I've noticed this is typical of your arguments. You list all the
    'unique' objects that the Russians have that it seems apparent no one
    else does. This is a fallacious thought, as having more isn't
    necessarily better.

    They inherited a lot of stuff. Stuff that included a wide variety of very capable artillery. Do you think that makes them weak in artillery or does it mean they have experience and choice when it comes to different capabilities and features.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:19 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    Right. But like I said, the latest Russian APFSDS is the BM-42M
    projectile, I have not heard of any further developments. I also doubt
    that Russian tanks can now load longer penetrators than Western tanks.
    The M829A3 projectile is over 830 mm long, almost a full feet longer
    than the latest Russian projectiles.

    Do you think the latest Russian APFSDS would be known about?

    Tell me all about all the types of ammo developed for the T-95.

    (If you don't know anything about the types of ammo developed for the T-95 why would you know more about new rounds being developed now?)

    Existing Russian tanks have to store their ammo in an under floor autoloader that limits the length each of the two components can be and still be loaded.

    This new tank modification (T-90AM) removes that restriction on ammo design... do you think they are going to keep the penetrators shorter or start making them longer?

    If no one has heard of them, assume they're not there.

    So far, they're not there.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 16, 2011 6:38 am

    If no one has heard of them, assume they're not there.

    So far, they're not there.

    You mean like no photos of T-95s till this year so they must have started work on it... this year?

    They have been working on the T-95 for some time and the company that makes tank MG ammo will have developed MG ammo for its large calibre gun.
    That company will also be working with UVZ on the turret bustle autoloader to make sure it operates properly... do you think they might have developed rounds with longer penetrator rods because of this?

    Whether you think so or not is not really important, they developed a brand new gun for this vehicle it is perfectly logical for them to develop new ammo too.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:04 am

    GarryB wrote:
    If no one has heard of them, assume they're not there.

    So far, they're not there.

    You mean like no photos of T-95s till this year so they must have started work on it... this year?

    They have been working on the T-95 for some time and the company that makes tank MG ammo will have developed MG ammo for its large calibre gun.
    That company will also be working with UVZ on the turret bustle autoloader to make sure it operates properly... do you think they might have developed rounds with longer penetrator rods because of this?

    Whether you think so or not is not really important, they developed a brand new gun for this vehicle it is perfectly logical for them to develop new ammo too.

    That's a chronology thing. No one even a picture or even a name of your imaginary Russian APFSDS, so thus, it is either your delusion or we don't know about it. Logic points us to the former until we actually do know about it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:59 pm

    That's a chronology thing. No one even a picture or even a name of your
    imaginary Russian APFSDS, so thus, it is either your delusion or we
    don't know about it. Logic points us to the former until we actually do
    know about it.

    It is hardly a chronology thing.
    It is a common sense thing.
    Your position equates to the the T-95 is crap because it will have a new 152mm gun but no ammo for it to fire.

    The Burlak upgrade, the Black Eagle, they were all programs that had turret bustle auto loaders that could load longer projectiles.

    I posted a link to a Fofanov page describing a longer penetrator.

    You want to assume they have not and will not develop longer penetrators that is up to you.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:58 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    That's a chronology thing. No one even a picture or even a name of your
    imaginary Russian APFSDS, so thus, it is either your delusion or we
    don't know about it. Logic points us to the former until we actually do
    know about it.

    It is hardly a chronology thing.
    It is a common sense thing.
    Your position equates to the the T-95 is crap because it will have a new 152mm gun but no ammo for it to fire.

    The Burlak upgrade, the Black Eagle, they were all programs that had turret bustle auto loaders that could load longer projectiles.

    I posted a link to a Fofanov page describing a longer penetrator.

    You want to assume they have not and will not develop longer penetrators that is up to you.

    Precisely. For all we know, those 152mm rounds could be made out of paper! For all we know. We don't know, don't assume.

    You are kidding me right? That "Fofanov page" you linked, WAS EXACTLY, the one I was talking about. That "long 740 mm round" WAS THE ROUND I WAS TALKING ABOUT. Why you don't understand that the length of the round is not the length of the penetrator, I don't know.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:24 am


    Precisely. For all we know, those 152mm rounds could be made out of paper! For all we know. We don't know, don't assume.

    I hardly think they decided to put a 152mm gun on a new tank for shts and giggles.
    The armour of opposing tanks would be assessed and a more powerful gun would be developed to defeat existing and potential future armour levels and the a gun AND AMMO would be developed around that.
    Going to a larger calibre is not done on a whim, it is very expensive and makes the ammo larger and bulkier and heavier too, which effects the design of the vehicles and makes it hard to retrofit to older models.

    You can think they are idiots if you like but I rather doubt they would bother with a new calibre without developing ammo for it and ensuring that it was able to do the job required.


    You are kidding me right? That "Fofanov page" you linked, WAS
    EXACTLY, the one I was talking about. That "long 740 mm round" WAS THE
    ROUND I WAS TALKING ABOUT. Why you don't understand that the length of
    the round is not the length of the penetrator, I don't know.

    He was talking about compatibility with the AUTOLOADER, which in every 125mm calibre Russian T series tank stores its ammo in two pieces. In the case of the T-72/90 autoloader both pieces are stored horizontally with their tips pointing inwards.

    Traditionally a round describes a projectile, a cartridge case and propellent. The 125mm round has a stub case and the projectile has an extra propellent charge around it so it can be called a round.
    Talking about carousel limitations means the length of the propellent stub is not relevant.

    If you look at Fofanovs page in the section on armament under the link for 125mm ammo in the section on APFSDS rounds and click on overview and a page in the right hand side appears that describes APFSDS rounds for that calibre in a generic way.

    READ IT.

    If you can't read it here it is here:


    Layout overview




    Most Soviet 125mm APFSDS rounds have the following layout (the round
    assembly depicted is 3BM-16/3BM-18): in the front of the projectile is a
    ballistic cap (1) which covers the nose of a penetrator body (2); there
    is a ring-shaped three-part discarding sabot (3) with a driving band (4);
    stability in flight is provided by means of 5 bore-riding fins (6), that are
    equipped with ballbearings (7) for centering in the barrel. The round is
    assembled with the incremental charge (5).

    In addition to the incremental charge integral to the round, the
    standard propelling charge (4Zh40 or 4Zh52, with newer high-energy
    rounds - 4Zh63) is used;
    APFSDS rounds have an initial velocity between
    1700 and 1800 m/s, and velocity loss of 60-140 m/s/km depending on the
    model and current velocity (older models being faster at muzzle, but
    losing velocity at greater rate).

    The separated sabot petals possess significant kinetic energy and
    are considered a safety hazard out to 1000m and 2° to each side of the
    gun.










    Note the bold bits?

    In fact I will repeat:  In addition to the incremental charge integral to the round, the
    standard propelling charge (4Zh40 or 4Zh52, with newer high-energy
    rounds - 4Zh63) is used;

    In other words the projectile with an incremental charge wrapped around the projectile IS THE ROUND.

    In addition to the round is the standard propelling charge stub that you are trying to count as part of the round.

    It certainly could be counted, but Fofanov clearly does not see both pieces together as the round... only the incremental charge and the projectile are termed the "round".
    Clear enough?  ...can we get over this?  Smile  
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:55 am

    [quote="GarryB"]

    Precisely. For all we know, those 152mm rounds could be made out of paper! For all we know. We don't know, don't assume.

    I hardly think they decided to put a 152mm gun on a new tank for shts and giggles.
    The armour of opposing tanks would be assessed and a more powerful gun would be developed to defeat existing and potential future armour levels and the a gun AND AMMO would be developed around that.
    Going to a larger calibre is not done on a whim, it is very expensive and makes the ammo larger and bulkier and heavier too, which effects the design of the vehicles and makes it hard to retrofit to older models.

    You can think they are idiots if you like but I rather doubt they would bother with a new calibre without developing ammo for it and ensuring that it was able to do the job required.

    152mm isn't a new caliber, this will be their new BL-10. So you'd agree that there is no Russian 125mm round that's longer than the BM-42M? Since that's what this paragraph of the whole discussion was about anyways.


    You are kidding me right? That "Fofanov page" you linked, WAS
    EXACTLY, the one I was talking about. That "long 740 mm round" WAS THE
    ROUND I WAS TALKING ABOUT. Why you don't understand that the length of
    the round is not the length of the penetrator, I don't know.

    He was talking about compatibility with the AUTOLOADER, which in every 125mm calibre Russian T series tank stores its ammo in two pieces. In the case of the T-72/90 autoloader both pieces are stored horizontally with their tips pointing inwards.

    Traditionally a round describes a projectile, a cartridge case and propellent. The 125mm round has a stub case and the projectile has an extra propellent charge around it so it can be called a round.
    Talking about carousel limitations means the length of the propellent stub is not relevant.

    If you look at Fofanovs page in the section on armament under the link for 125mm ammo in the section on APFSDS rounds and click on overview and a page in the right hand side appears that describes APFSDS rounds for that calibre in a generic way.

    READ IT.

    If you can't read it here it is here:


    Layout overview




    Most Soviet 125mm APFSDS rounds have the following layout (the round
    assembly depicted is 3BM-16/3BM-18): in the front of the projectile is a
    ballistic cap (1) which covers the nose of a penetrator body (2); there
    is a ring-shaped three-part discarding sabot (3) with a driving band (4);
    stability in flight is provided by means of 5 bore-riding fins (6), that are
    equipped with ballbearings (7) for centering in the barrel. The round is
    assembled with the incremental charge (5).

    In addition to the incremental charge integral to the round, the
    standard propelling charge (4Zh40 or 4Zh52, with newer high-energy
    rounds - 4Zh63) is used;
    APFSDS rounds have an initial velocity between
    1700 and 1800 m/s, and velocity loss of 60-140 m/s/km depending on the
    model and current velocity (older models being faster at muzzle, but
    losing velocity at greater rate).

    The separated sabot petals possess significant kinetic energy and
    are considered a safety hazard out to 1000m and 2° to each side of the
    gun.

    Note the bold bits?

    In fact I will repeat:  In addition to the incremental charge integral to the round, the
    standard propelling charge (4Zh40 or 4Zh52, with newer high-energy
    rounds - 4Zh63) is used;

    In other words the projectile with an incremental charge wrapped around the projectile IS THE ROUND.

    In addition to the round is the standard propelling charge stub that you are trying to count as part of the round.

    It certainly could be counted, but Fofanov clearly does not see both pieces together as the round... only the incremental charge and the projectile are termed the "round".
    Clear enough?  ...can we get over this?  Smile  

    You are still not understanding what I am saying. I wasn't referring to the round; you were. I was referring to the penetrator, the thing that actually will hit the tank. That thing is only 500 mm long, why you thought it was 700 mm was your mistake. Like I said, why you didn't understand the difference between the two, I don't know.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:55 pm

    So you'd agree that there is no Russian 125mm round that's longer than the BM-42M?

    The BM-42M was developed in the late 1990s I rather expect, considering they have come out with a new APFSDS round every 4 years or so that there are likely at least 2 other designs we don't know anything about, and if they haven't already they will right now be developing newer longer penetrators knowing that the T-90AM is the new standard T-90 tank design.

    You are still not understanding what I am saying. I wasn't referring to
    the round; you were. I was referring to the penetrator, the thing that
    actually will hit the tank. That thing is only 500 mm long, why you
    thought it was 700 mm was your mistake. Like I said, why you didn't
    understand the difference between the two, I don't know.

    Because if you look at the APFSDS section in the left hand side below where it links to the overview posted above, there is a link below it called nomenclature and if you click on that link it lists all the rounds known at the time the page was written and if you scroll to near the bottom it lists the details of the round in a table.
    Under the section on the inflight projectile it tells you the material the projectile is made of... in this case W for Wolfram or Tungsten... and it also gives the length of the projectile... 730mm. Further down the table it lists the penetrator as 570mm by 22mm, but that is the penetrator component of the projectile.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:14 pm

    So you'd agree that there is no Russian 125mm round that's longer than the BM-42M?

    The BM-42M was developed in the late 1990s I rather expect, considering they have come out with a new APFSDS round every 4 years or so that there are likely at least 2 other designs we don't know anything about, and if they haven't already they will right now be developing newer longer penetrators knowing that the T-90AM is the new standard T-90 tank design.

    Let me rephrase that, no Russian 125mm round that we know of?

    You are still not understanding what I am saying. I wasn't referring to
    the round; you were. I was referring to the penetrator, the thing that
    actually will hit the tank. That thing is only 500 mm long, why you
    thought it was 700 mm was your mistake. Like I said, why you didn't
    understand the difference between the two, I don't know.

    Because if you look at the APFSDS section in the left hand side below where it links to the overview posted above, there is a link below it called nomenclature and if you click on that link it lists all the rounds known at the time the page was written and if you scroll to near the bottom it lists the details of the round in a table.
    Under the section on the inflight projectile it tells you the material the projectile is made of... in this case W for Wolfram or Tungsten... and it also gives the length of the projectile... 730mm. Further down the table it lists the penetrator as 570mm by 22mm, but that is the penetrator component of the projectile.

    Precisely. You shoulda read the whole page before you thought you knew what you were talking about.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:15 am

    Let me rephrase that, no Russian 125mm round that we know of?

    During the 1990s... a period of very little funding they developed the BM-42M.
    Is it logical to assume they stopped working on penetrators in the late 1990s?
    If you could prove that we knew everything about everything they are working on you would have a very good point. Problem is that we know there are lots of things they are working on we don't have a clue about so your argument that because we don't know what they are working on now means they must not be working on anything does not hold water.

    Precisely. You shoulda read the whole page before you thought you knew what you were talking about.

    The length of the projectile is 730mm.


    Last edited by GarryB on Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:15 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Let me rephrase that, no Russian 125mm round that we know of?

    During the 1990s... a period of very little funding they developed the BM-42M.
    Is it logical to assume they stopped working on penetrators in the late 1990s?
    If you could prove that we knew everything about everything they are working on you would have a very good point. Problem is that we know there are lots of things they are working on we don't have a clue about so your argument that because we don't know what they are working on now means they must not be working on anything does not hold water.

    Analyzing Defense technologies is not akin to analyzing Space anomalies. Just because it can happen doesn't mean it has. Like I've asked, is there any Russian 125 mm round that has been developed after the BM-42M that we know of?

    Precisely. You shoulda read the whole page before you thought you knew what you were talking about.

    The length of the projectile is 730mm.[/quote]

    The whole length of the round is 730 mm. The whole length of the penetrator is 570 mm.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:07 am

    Analyzing Defense technologies is not akin to analyzing Space anomalies.
    Just because it can happen doesn't mean it has. Like I've asked, is
    there any Russian 125 mm round that has been developed after the BM-42M
    that we know of?

    That we know of? No.
    Does that mean there isn't a new round, or several new rounds developed in the last 10 years since the BM-42M was developed? No.
    The company that makes 125mm main gun ammo has probably just taken a decade long holiday... after all the period of 1990 to 1999 was so well funded.

    Did a quick search of Tanknet and found this comment:

    A comment on the current state of the art of Russian rounds. There are
    two rounds currently in trials, one that is limited by the dimensions of
    current autoloaders and another that isn't. Dimensions of the first,
    22x630, weight and velocity unknown, penetrator ratio about 85%. Of the
    second, 22x726, weight with sabot 8.1kg, velocity unknown, penetrator
    ratio about 92%. Both rounds' penetrators appear monoblock.

    This comment was from the 9th of July 2009 and was made by Vassily Fofanov.

    Remember that in addition to tanks there are towed 125mm smoothbore anti tank guns still used in Russia so long rod penetrators that are too long to handle in auto loaders can still be produced and used.

    The whole length of the round is 730 mm. The whole length of the penetrator is 570 mm.

    The projectile length is 730mm but the rear of the projectile contains tracer material and does not aide in penetration.

    You were talking about projectiles.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:22 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    Analyzing Defense technologies is not akin to analyzing Space anomalies.
    Just because it can happen doesn't mean it has. Like I've asked, is
    there any Russian 125 mm round that has been developed after the BM-42M
    that we know of?

    That we know of? No.
    Does that mean there isn't a new round, or several new rounds developed in the last 10 years since the BM-42M was developed? No.
    The company that makes 125mm main gun ammo has probably just taken a decade long holiday... after all the period of 1990 to 1999 was so well funded.

    Did a quick search of Tanknet and found this comment:

    A comment on the current state of the art of Russian rounds. There are
    two rounds currently in trials, one that is limited by the dimensions of
    current autoloaders and another that isn't. Dimensions of the first,
    22x630, weight and velocity unknown, penetrator ratio about 85%. Of the
    second, 22x726, weight with sabot 8.1kg, velocity unknown, penetrator
    ratio about 92%. Both rounds' penetrators appear monoblock.

    This comment was from the 9th of July 2009 and was made by Vassily Fofanov.

    Remember that in addition to tanks there are towed 125mm smoothbore anti tank guns still used in Russia so long rod penetrators that are too long to handle in auto loaders can still be produced and used.

    So like I've said, we can't assume it's capabilities until we e-detectives get more pictures to analyze, deduce some facts, and then input them into some complex mathematical formulas and come out with an RHAe. As for now, the BM-42M is the best Russian projectile that we know of, RHAe at 2km is estimated at 650 mm.

    The whole length of the round is 730 mm. The whole length of the penetrator is 570 mm.

    The projectile length is 730mm but the rear of the projectile contains tracer material and does not aide in penetration.

    You were talking about projectiles.

    You were talking about round lengths, I was talking about penetrator lengths. Refer to post #22, when you copied and pasted a paragraph from Vasiliy:

    "This round has a total length of 740mm"

    To which I replied in post #33,

    "You are referring to the round's total length. I am referring specifically to the projectile itself, who's dimensions are about 540 mm long and 22 mm in diameter. "

    To which you replied in post #37,

    "The ammo is two piece so its total length (round and stub propellent case) is irrelevant."

    Which boils down to that you were referring to the entire round (penetrator + sabot + tracer) being 740 mm long, while I was referring to the penetrator specifically being 570 mm long.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 01, 2011 6:50 am


    So like I've said, we can't assume it's capabilities until we
    e-detectives get more pictures to analyze, deduce some facts, and then
    input them into some complex mathematical formulas and come out with an
    RHAe. As for now, the BM-42M is the best Russian projectile that we know
    of, RHAe at 2km is estimated at 650 mm.

    But you also said that these new penetrators didn't exist and only the BM-42M exists.
    I am sure you can now suggest that the two new penetrators in testing almost 2 years ago (July 2009) will be the same as the BM-42M and will not be longer or have better performance or improved materials etc etc... and you are entitled to that opinion.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun May 01, 2011 7:57 am

    [quote="GarryB"]

    So like I've said, we can't assume it's capabilities until we
    e-detectives get more pictures to analyze, deduce some facts, and then
    input them into some complex mathematical formulas and come out with an
    RHAe. As for now, the BM-42M is the best Russian projectile that we know
    of, RHAe at 2km is estimated at 650 mm.

    But you also said that these new penetrators didn't exist and only the BM-42M exists.
    I am sure you can now suggest that the two new penetrators in testing almost 2 years ago (July 2009) will be the same as the BM-42M and will not be longer or have better performance or improved materials etc etc... and you are entitled to that opinion.

    Oh yes, so if they're in testing they aren't in service. We're not here to predict the future we're here to discuss facts.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tank Warfare: Russian Armour vs Western Armour

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:57 pm